From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Leme Realty Corp. v. Kings Mercantile Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 1963
19 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)

Opinion

October 28, 1963


In an action by a vendee for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property or for the recovery of the deposit and title expense, the vendor — the corporate defendant — appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, rendered February 26, 1963 upon the court's written decision after a nonjury trial, in the plaintiff's favor in the sum of $9,384.49, for the deposit, the title expense, interest and costs. Judgment affirmed, with costs. It appears that as of the closing day there was an incumbrance on the property. It also appears that in the written contract between the parties the seller made a representation with respect to the location and use of sewers; that such representation was untrue; that under the terms of the contract the vendee was entitled to the return of its deposit upon notifying the vendor of the falsity of the representation within the time prescribed; and that the vendee duly gave such notice. Under the circumstances, the defendant seller was not entitled to a forfeiture of the deposit. Beldock, P.J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Leme Realty Corp. v. Kings Mercantile Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 28, 1963
19 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)
Case details for

Leme Realty Corp. v. Kings Mercantile Co.

Case Details

Full title:LEME REALTY CORP., Respondent, v. KINGS MERCANTILE CO., INC., Appellant…

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

Date published: Oct 28, 1963

Citations

19 A.D.2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1963)

Citing Cases

ARDI v. MARTIN

Generally, absent clauses in the contract acting as a condition subsequent or precedent, "[i]n order to place…

130-164 Ravine Ave. Inc. v. Ravine Associates

Thereafter, the seller determined that the rent schedule, listing 253 persons occupying approximately 123…