Fuchs v. Arutt

1 Citing case

  1. Berholtz v. Georgiou

    184 A.D.2d 677 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 8 times

    Therefore, pursuant to the express terms of the contract, the buyer was entitled to a full refund of his down payment (see, Smith v. Faruolo, Caputi Weintraub, 161 A.D.2d 576; Flaherty v Elber Constr. Corp., 149 A.D.2d 655). The sellers' conclusory and speculative allegations that the buyer might not have exhibited good faith and due diligence in attempting to obtain a mortgage are unsupported by the record (cf., Fuchs v. Arutt, 138 A.D.2d 673), and do not establish the existence of a genuine issue of fact to be resolved at trial. We have reviewed the sellers' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.