Opinion
October 26, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.).
Defendant submitted uncontradicted proof that he had complied with the terms of the contract of sale regarding application for the cooperative board's approval.
Plaintiffs had no legitimate reason to declare defendant in default. There is no merit to plaintiffs' contention that their demand for liquidated damages was anything but a repudiation of the contract of sale. The purpose of liquidated damages is to compensate a plaintiff for permitting a defendant to terminate his contractual obligations (Muzak Corp. v Trattner, 28 Misc.2d 504 [App Term, 1st Dept]).
We have reviewed plaintiffs' other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Kupferman, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.