From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

D'Abreau v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 1997
240 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 23, 1997

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


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The contract of sale pursuant to which the plaintiff, Kenneth D'Abreau, and his wife agreed to purchase certain real property from the defendant Edward E. Smith did not specify a closing date, but instead stated that the closing would take place within eight weeks after a certificate of occupancy was obtained for a legal two-family dwelling. In such a case, there is an implied duty to perform within a reasonable time ( see, Austin v. Trybus, 136 A.D.2d 940).

The record does not reflect whether the plaintiff ever made a sufficient demand for performance upon the defendant prior to the commencement of this action. In addition, the record does not reflect whether the defendant, after obtaining the certificate of occupancy, made a sufficient demand for performance upon the plaintiff. Such a demand by one of the parties is required to cause the other party to be in default ( see, Hamburger v. Rieselman, 206 A.D.2d 822; Knight v. McClean, 171 A.D.2d 648; Drago v. Flewellin, 33 A.D.2d 570).

Even absent such sufficient demand notices, if, after being informed that a certificate of occupancy had been obtained, the plaintiff gave a definite and final communication evincing an intention to forego performance under the contract, constituting an anticipatory breach ( see, Rachmani Corp. v. 9 E. 96th St. Apt. Corp., 211 A.D.2d 262, 267), the defendant would have been entitled to retain the down payment and to convey the property to alternative purchasers ( see, Capozzola v. Oxman, 216 A.D.2d 509; Bucciero v. Jian Sheng Li, 191 A.D.2d 887; Cooper v Bosse, 85 A.D.2d 616). The record, however, does not reveal what transpired between the parties after the defendant obtained the certificate of occupancy.

Accordingly, the appellant failed to establish his entitlement to summary judgment, and the Supreme Court properly denied the cross motion.

Bracken, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

D'Abreau v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 23, 1997
240 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

D'Abreau v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH D'ABREAU, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of…

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

Date published: Jun 23, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 616 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
659 N.Y.S.2d 503

Citing Cases

Pekich v. Lawrence

The Supreme Court granted the motion. We reverse, however, because the record does not reflect that the…

Manzi Homes, Inc. v. Mooney

Contract language which is clear and unambiguous must be enforced according to its terms ( see W.W.W. Assoc.…