From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coneys v. Game

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 27, 1988
141 A.D.2d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

June 27, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krausman, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

We disagree with the determination of the Supreme Court, Kings County, that the defendant seller acted within her rights in canceling the contract (cf., Kramer v Palnagio, 128 A.D.2d 842, 843; Lieberman v Pettinato, 120 A.D.2d 646). The mortgage contingency clause was solely for the benefit of the plaintiff purchaser and did not grant the seller the option to cancel the contract in the event the purchaser failed to obtain a mortgage commitment by a specified date (cf., Grossman v Perlman, 132 A.D.2d 522, 523, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 616, rearg denied 71 N.Y.2d 890; Lieberman v Pettinato, supra, at 647). Moreover, the record indicates that the buyer obtained a mortgage commitment within the time specified in the contract and that the seller was apprised of this fact by the realtor.

In addition, the purchaser's acceptance of a check from the seller which represented a refund of his down payment did not constitute an accord and satisfaction. The check was nothing more than a return of the buyer's own property which the seller had no right to retain after her breach (see, Merrill Lynch Realty/Carll Burr, Inc. v Skinner, 63 N.Y.2d 590, rearg denied 64 N.Y.2d 885; Lotito v Mazzeo, 132 A.D.2d 650, 651; Paynter v Vishnia, 114 A.D.2d 404, 405). Brown, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Coneys v. Game

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 27, 1988
141 A.D.2d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Coneys v. Game

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN CONEYS, Appellant, v. CATHLEEN GAME et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Jun 27, 1988

Citations

141 A.D.2d 795 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. Giancontieri

In addition, it is reasonable to infer that the seller would prefer the guaranteed financial commitment of a…

Ting v. Dean

the effect of this clause may not be avoided on the theory that the provision was inserted into the contract…