From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

East Lincoln Realty Center v. Isley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 1991
170 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

February 19, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ruskin, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The court properly awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff on the defendants' promissory note. Contrary to the defendants' contention, the fact that the President of the plaintiff corporation served the summons and notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint upon the defendants, does not vitiate that service (see, Grid Realty Corp. v Gialousakis, 129 A.D.2d 768). In addition, the defendants failed to adduce sufficient proof in admissible form (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557) in opposition to the plaintiff's motion, to warrant its denial.

It is uncontroverted that the defendants executed a promissory note to secure their indebtedness of $105,000 resulting from their purchase of the plaintiff's business. In lieu of a downpayment the defendants were obligated to pay $20,000 on June 1, 1989, "time being of the essence". Because time was expressly rendered of the essence, the defendants were obligated to strictly comply with the terms of the note (see, Grace v Nappa, 46 N.Y.2d 560; Jones Realty Corp. v Frick, 144 A.D.2d 451; 17A CJS, Contracts, § 504 [1] [c]). Pursuant to the terms of the note's acceleration clause (see, Libeson v Copy Realty Corp., 167 A.D.2d 376), the plaintiff was entitled to declare the defendants in default upon their non-payment. Furthermore, notwithstanding the defendants' present contention, which is improperly raised for the first time on appeal (see, Kohilakis v Town of Smithtown, 167 A.D.2d 513; Gunzberg v Gunzberg, 152 A.D.2d 537; Schoonmaker v State of New York, 94 A.D.2d 741), that the parties had orally amended their agreement, the record reveals that even pursuant to the alleged terms of this modified agreement the defendants would still be in default due to their failure to make the payments allegedly required thereby. Accordingly, there is no basis in the record to disturb the award of summary judgment to the plaintiff. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

East Lincoln Realty Center v. Isley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 19, 1991
170 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

East Lincoln Realty Center v. Isley

Case Details

Full title:EAST LINCOLN REALTY CENTER, Doing Business as CENTURY 21 EAST LINCOLN…

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

Date published: Feb 19, 1991

Citations

170 A.D.2d 574 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
566 N.Y.S.2d 351

Citing Cases

Orix Credit Alliance, Inc. v. Grace Industries, Inc.

Thus, the plaintiff's alleged failure to timely bill Grace for that installment cannot excuse Grace's failure…

Milad v. Marcisak

When a provision that time is of the essence is included in a real estate contract, each party must tender…