H Eighth Avenue Associates, LLC v. Stessa Corp.

Full title: H EIGHTH AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. STESSA…

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 23, 2012

92 A.D.3d 592 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)

938 N.Y.S.2d 560

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 1371

Opinion

2012-02-23

H EIGHTH AVENUE ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. STESSA CORP., Defendant–Appellant–Respondent.

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York (Sean E. O'Donnell of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New York (Ross L. Hirsch of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

TOM

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, New York (Sean E. O'Donnell of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New York (Ross L. Hirsch of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, SWEENY, MOSKOWITZ, DEGRASSE, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.), entered November 7, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant's counterclaim for specific performance, denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim and denied plaintiff's motion for sanctions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff seller could not have cured the notice of pendency problem by the latest of the closing dates selected through no fault of its own, and properly demanded that defendant purchaser elect its remedies pursuant to the limitation of remedies provision in their contract of sale ( see Mehlman v. 592–600 Union Ave. Corp., 46 A.D.3d 338, 342–343, 847 N.Y.S.2d 547 [2007]; Meisels v. 1295 Union Equities Corp., 306 A.D.2d 144, 145, 761 N.Y.S.2d 48 [2003] ). The seller properly terminated the contract in light of the purchaser's failure to make the election and demonstrate its financial ability to close ( see Gindi v. Intertrade Internationale Ltd., 50 A.D.3d 575, 856 N.Y.S.2d 104 [2008] ). In view of the purchaser's counsel's actual knowledge of certain pending litigation, the seller's inaccurate representation that no litigation was pending could not benefit the purchaser ( see Sisler v. Security Pac. Bus. Credit, 201 A.D.2d 216, 221–224, 614 N.Y.S.2d 985 [1994], lv. dismissed 84 N.Y.2d 978, 622 N.Y.S.2d 917, 647 N.E.2d 123 [1994] ).

We have considered the parties' other contentions and find them unavailing.