From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Herbst v. 1514 Eastern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 18, 2007
46 A.D.3d 751 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 2006-09612.

December 18, 2007.

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant 1514 Eastern Parkway, Ltd., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated August 16, 2006, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it directing, inter alia, specific performance of the subject contract for the sale of real property.

Byers Byers, New York, N.Y. (Stafford H. Byers and Eugene Byers of counsel), for appellant.

Tenenbaum Berger, LLP, Brooklyn, N.Y. (David M. Berger of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Miller, J.P., Crane, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Where a case is tried without a jury, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial court, and this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses ( see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499; Musick v 330 Wythe Ave. Assoc. LLC, 41 AD3d 675). Here, there was sufficient evidence demonstrating that the appellant, on the basis of a mortgage contingency clause that ran solely to the benefit of the purchaser, repudiated the subject contract in a manner constituting an anticipatory breach ( see Goldstein v Held, 37 AD3d 657, 658; Coneys v Game, 141 AD2d 795), and that the plaintiff, as assignee of the defendant Aaron Fromowitz, was ready, willing, and able to perform his obligations under the subject contract ( see Goldstein v Held, 37 AD3d at 658).

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Herbst v. 1514 Eastern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 18, 2007
46 A.D.3d 751 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Herbst v. 1514 Eastern

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD HERBST, Respondent, v. 1514 EASTERN PARKWAY, LTD., Appellant, et…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 18, 2007

Citations

46 A.D.3d 751 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 10102
848 N.Y.S.2d 343

Citing Cases

Heung C. Rha v. Blangiardo

Here, we agree with the plaintiffs that the trial evidence sufficiently demonstrated their entitlement to…

In re Best Payphones, Inc.

Where the contract has been assigned, the assignee must demonstrate its own readiness, willingness and…