From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodlark Construction Corp. v. Callahan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 23, 1949
275 App. Div. 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Opinion

May 23, 1949.

Present — Nolan, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ.


In an action to reform a contract for the sale of land and for specific performance thereof as reformed or, in the alternative, for money damages, plaintiff, the contract vendee, appeals from a decision herein, and from a judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits. The contract contained a clause reading in part as follows: "This contract is conditional upon the purchaser receiving a commitment from the F.H.A. 603, for the erection of one family houses for sale or for rent. * * * In the event that a commitment is not obtained, within Four (4) weeks from the date of this instrument, from the F.H.A. then this contract is to be null and void and all sums paid herein are to be returned and all liability to cease." The amended supplemental complaint demanded reformation of said clause by the insertion of the phrase, "at the option of the purchaser" after the word "contract" in the last sentence quoted. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from decision dismissed, without costs. In our opinion the proof adduced sustains the conclusion reached by the Special Term that the contract, as drawn, expressed the intention of the parties, and sustains the construction of the contract as requiring that a commitment be obtained from the F.H.A. as a condition precedent, which was for the benefit of both parties.


Summaries of

Woodlark Construction Corp. v. Callahan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 23, 1949
275 App. Div. 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)
Case details for

Woodlark Construction Corp. v. Callahan

Case Details

Full title:WOODLARK CONSTRUCTION CORP., Appellant, v. WILLIAM E. CALLAHAN, Respondent

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

Date published: May 23, 1949

Citations

275 App. Div. 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 1949)

Citing Cases

W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. Giancontieri

This court held that this type of subdivision approval contingency was for the benefit of both parties, as…

Poquott Development Corp. v. Johnson

While conditions relating to subdivision approval in a real estate contract are usually for the benefit of…