From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Connolly v. Hampton Landscopes, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 1994
210 A.D.2d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

December 12, 1994

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


Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

It is well established that in order for one selling real property to be in default for failure to provide insurable title, the purchaser "must first tender performance himself and demand good title" (Ilemar Corp. v Krochmal, 44 N.Y.2d 702, 703; see also, Cohen v Krantz, 12 N.Y.2d 242). Since the plaintiff failed to attend the scheduled closing, never tendered performance, never demanded good title from the defendants, and never informed the defendants of specific defects in the title prior to the closing, it was the plaintiff who was in default, not the defendants (Ilemar Corp. v Krochmal, supra). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants and awarded the defendant seller judgment in the amount of the down payment. Lawrence, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Connolly v. Hampton Landscopes, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 12, 1994
210 A.D.2d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Connolly v. Hampton Landscopes, Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN J. CONNOLLY, Appellant, v. HAMPTON LANDSCOPES, LTD., et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 12, 1994

Citations

210 A.D.2d 285 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
620 N.Y.S.2d 8

Citing Cases

Stenda Realty, LLC v. Kornman

In order for a seller of real property to be found in default for failure to provide insurable or marketable…

Salerno v. D'Alessandro

The foregoing clauses are sufficiently specific to bar the buyers from claiming that they were fraudulently…