From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cojal, Inc. v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 17, 1988
143 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

October 17, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Orgera, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Initially, we note that since the plaintiff failed to raise any issue in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, with respect to the procedural propriety of the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [1]) before the Supreme Court, the issues raised with respect thereto on appeal may not serve as a basis for reversal (see, Lang v Cohalan, 127 A.D.2d 17, 21; Nelson v Times Sq. Stores Corp., 110 A.D.2d 691, appeal dismissed 67 N.Y.2d 645).

Furthermore, the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants unambiguously established that the plaintiff purchaser canceled the contract upon learning that the defendants sellers allegedly breached a warranty, and the cancellation was accepted by the defendants (see, Farahzad v Monometrics Corp., 119 A.D.2d 721; Cooper v Bosse, 85 A.D.2d 616). Thus, the plaintiff could not, more than three months after the cancellation and the closing date set forth in the contract, insist that the contract be fulfilled (see, Gravenhorst v Zimmerman, 236 N.Y. 22; Cooper v Bosse, supra). The plaintiff's contention that the rescission was ineffective because it was based upon mutual mistake is similarly unavailing. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Cojal, Inc. v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 17, 1988
143 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Cojal, Inc. v. Davis

Case Details

Full title:COJAL, INC., Appellant, v. LESTER H. DAVIS et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Oct 17, 1988

Citations

143 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Matter of Marie v. Harold

Initially, we note that the appellant failed to raise any issue before the Family Court with respect to the…