From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Joseph v. Rutherford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 12, 2008
52 A.D.3d 317 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

Nos. 3907, 3907A.

June 12, 2008.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Rolando T. Acosta, J.), entered December 26, 2007, which, upon granting plaintiffs' motion for reargument, adhered to the original determination denying their motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from the prior order, entered August 2, 2007, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as superseded by appeal from the later order.

Tuan Cho, LLP, Oyster Bay, (Dean T. Cho of counsel), for appellants.

Katsky Korins LLP, New York (Joshua S. Margolin of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Friedman, Buckley and Catterson, JJ.


In 2006, plaintiff's entered into an agreement with defendant Rutherford for the purchase of a condominium apartment in Manhattan. Plaintiff's put down a 10% deposit on the apartment, and later a "second" deposit (both of which were held in escrow by defendant Katsky Korins), but were unable to close on the transaction due to failure to obtain necessary financing. The agreement provided that upon a default by the purchaser, the seller would be entitled to "retain, as and for liquidated damages, the Deposit (but not the Additional Deposit) and any interest earned on the Deposit." A default by the purchaser included, inter alia, the "failure to pay the balance of the Purchase Price . . . on the Closing Date."

We reject plaintiffs' contention that the court committed reversible error by failing to address their argument that defendants repudiated the purchase agreement as a matter of law by refusing to return the "second" deposit tendered by plaintiff's immediately after they had notified Rutherford of their inability to close on the transaction. Plaintiff's do not make a prima facie showing that the term "Additional Deposit" referred to in the purchase agreement is unambiguous as a matter of law, or that the "second" deposit is in fact the "Additional Deposit." Hence, they are not entitled to summary judgment.

We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.


Summaries of

Joseph v. Rutherford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jun 12, 2008
52 A.D.3d 317 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Joseph v. Rutherford

Case Details

Full title:JOSEPH MALEWICH et al., Appellants, v. RUTHERFORD ESTATES, LLC, Also Known…

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

Date published: Jun 12, 2008

Citations

52 A.D.3d 317 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5361
859 N.Y.S.2d 188