From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pinhas v. Comperchio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 2008
50 A.D.3d 1117 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Summary

In Pinhas v. Comperchio, 50 A.D.3d 1117 (2d Dept. 2008), the Second Department affirmed the trial court's decision to grant the defendant-seller's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and for judgment on the counterclaim for the amount of the buyer's down payment.

Summary of this case from Vision Enter. v. 111 E. Shore

Opinion

No. 2007-04992.

April 29, 2008.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Saitta, J.), dated October 16, 2006, which denied their cross motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for judgment on the counterclaim of the defendant Pauline Comperchio for the return of a down payment in the principal sum of $52,500.

Noel W. Hauser, New York, N.Y., for appellants.

Caruso, Caruso Branda, P.C., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Mark J. Caruso and Grace M. Borrino of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Santucci and Belen, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and for judgment on the counterclaim of the defendant Pauline Comperchio (hereinafter the seller) for the amount of the down payment made by the plaintiffs Haim Pinhas and Margaliy Laniado (hereinafter the purchasers). The seller established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law that she was ready, willing, and able to perform on the law day, while the purchasers failed to proceed with the closing ( see Engelhardt v McGinnis, 2 AD3d 572). In response to this showing, the purchasers failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether they tendered performance and permitted the seller an opportunity to cure any alleged default ( see Cohen v Kranz, 12 NY2d 242; Hegner v Reed, 2 AD3d 683; R.C.E.S. Assoc. v Karam Devs., 258 AD2d 510). Pursuant to the contract of sale, the seller is entitled to the amount of the down payment as liquidated damages.


Summaries of

Pinhas v. Comperchio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 29, 2008
50 A.D.3d 1117 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

In Pinhas v. Comperchio, 50 A.D.3d 1117 (2d Dept. 2008), the Second Department affirmed the trial court's decision to grant the defendant-seller's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and for judgment on the counterclaim for the amount of the buyer's down payment.

Summary of this case from Vision Enter. v. 111 E. Shore
Case details for

Pinhas v. Comperchio

Case Details

Full title:HAIM PINHAS et al., Appellants, v. PAULINE COMPERCHIO let al., Respondents

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

Date published: Apr 29, 2008

Citations

50 A.D.3d 1117 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 4068
857 N.Y.S.2d 616

Citing Cases

Martocci v. Schneider

The sellers appeal from a judgment, entered upon the order, in favor of the purchaser and against them in the…

Vision Enterprises, LLC v. 111 East Shore, LLC

The Supreme Court properly held that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing the…