From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

William Champion v. Blue Water Advisors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 22, 2011
82 A.D.3d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

No. 4268.

March 22, 2011.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Doris LingCohan, J.), entered April 28, 2010, awarding plaintiffs the total sum of $594,392.85 as against defendant Blue Water Advisors, Inc., also known as Blue Water Advisors LLC, upon an order of the same court and Justice, entered April 26, 2010, which granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and denied Blue Water's cross motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Rosabianca Associates, P.L.L.C., New York (Jeremy Panzella of counsel), for appellant.

Kagan Lubic Lepper Lewis Gold Colbert, LLP, New York (J. David Morrissy of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Gonzalez, P.J., Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.


The motion court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiff purchasers ( see Giuffrida v Citibank Corp., 100 NY2d 72, 81; Atlantic Dev. Group, LLC v 296 E. 149th St., LLC, 70 AD3d 528). "When `time of the essence' is expressly stated, the parties are obligated to strictly comply with the terms of the contract" ( Milad v Marcisak, 307 AD2d 281, 282). Plaintiffs demonstrated that they were prepared to close on June 9, 2009, and that the "time of the essence" date was set out in the parties' agreement. This entitled plaintiffs to demand immediate performance. When the seller failed to appear at the closing on June 9, the purchasers were within their rights to declare the seller in default ( see Grace v Nappa, 46 NY2d 560, 565-566; 115-117 Nassau St., LLC v Nassau Beekman, LLC, 74 AD3d 537). The fact that the seller claims it was ready and willing to close a day or two after the "law day" is immaterial ( see Spiegel v Kessler, 216 AD2d 239, 241). Once the seller was in breach, the purchasers had no further duty to entertain the seller's proposed alternate closing dates ( see Grace v Nappa at 566; 115-117 Nassau St., LLC v Nassau Beekman, LLC at 537). Accordingly, the motion was properly granted and the cross motion was properly denied. [Prior Case History: 2010 NY Slip Op 30848(U).]


Summaries of

William Champion v. Blue Water Advisors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 22, 2011
82 A.D.3d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

William Champion v. Blue Water Advisors, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM CHAMPION et al., Respondents, v. BLUE WATER ADVISORS, INC., Also…

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

Date published: Mar 22, 2011

Citations

82 A.D.3d 568 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 2045
919 N.Y.S.2d 21

Citing Cases

Markham Gardens L.P. v. 511 9TH LLC

sence given the commercial nature of the 421–a Agreement ( Reddy v. Ratnam, 95 A.D.3d 982, 943 N.Y.S.2d 623…

Deftereos v. Pitsinos

Failure to appear at closing to tender performance on a purchase agreement may constitute a default where…