From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Klein v. Opert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 28, 1994
201 A.D.2d 705 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

February 28, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the order is vacated, the cross motion is denied, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted to the extent that the plaintiffs are entitled to retain the defendants' down payment on the contract as liquidated damages, the motion is otherwise denied, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for entry of a judgment in the plaintiffs' favor authorizing them to retain the defendants' down payment of $25,000.

We find, as a matter of law, that the defendants' notice dated February 10, 1990, fixing February 16, 1990, as the law day, with time of the essence, failed to provide the plaintiffs with a reasonable time in which to close (see, Ben Zev v Merman, 73 N.Y.2d 781; Knight v. McClean, 171 A.D.2d 648). As a result, the plaintiffs were entitled to a reasonable adjournment of the closing date "without the passage of the law day amounting to an incurable contractual default" (Tarlo v. Robinson, 118 A.D.2d 561, 565; see, 3M Holding Corp. v. Wagner, 166 A.D.2d 580; Sohayegh v. Oberlander, 155 A.D.2d 436). Therefore, the plaintiffs' failure to produce the necessary certificates and permits on February 16, 1990, did not render them in default.

We further find that because the necessary certificates and permits were obtainable by the plaintiffs within a reasonable time, and the defendants were aware that they could not be obtained prior to the law day, the defendants' refusal to provide the plaintiffs with a reasonable time to obtain them was tantamount to an anticipatory breach (see, Oxford Funding Corp. v. James H. Northrup, Inc., 130 A.D.2d 722; GDJS Corp. v. 917 Props., 99 A.D.2d 998). Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to retain the defendants' $25,000 down payment, pursuant to the contract of sale. Sullivan, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Klein v. Opert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 28, 1994
201 A.D.2d 705 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Klein v. Opert

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD KLEIN et al., Appellants, v. STEPHEN OPERT et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 28, 1994

Citations

201 A.D.2d 705 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
608 N.Y.S.2d 292

Citing Cases

Tesmer Builders, Inc. v. Cimato

Thus, the purchaser was not entitled to demand performance on February 9. We conclude that the purchaser's…

Leishman v. S B Realty of Orange Cty., Inc.

Ordered that the judgment is modified by deleting the words "in the form and in the manner hereto annexed and…