From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

HOO CORP. v. 109 GRAHAM AVENUE CORP. [2d Dept 2001

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 2001
288 A.D.2d 266 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted October 12, 2001.

November 13, 2001.

In an action to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Belen, J.), dated April 14, 2000, which, inter alia, in effect, denied its motion to dismiss the complaint based on the plaintiff's failure to comply with a prior order of the same court, dated July 12, 1999, and the parties' contract, dated March 24, 1997.

Falcone Curd, LLP, Hempstead, N.Y. (Leonard J. Falcone of counsel), for appellant.

Gitomer, Schwimmer, Berns Elliot, Forest Hills, N.Y. (Warren S. Hecht of counsel), for respondent.

Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Pursuant to an order dated May 6, 1999, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and ordered specific performance of the parties' contract for the sale of real property to the plaintiff. That order was affirmed by this court (see, Hoo Corp. v. 109 Graham Ave. Corp., 272 A.D.2d 377).

By order dated July 12, 1999, the Supreme Court, inter alia, directed that the closing be held within 60 days after service of a copy of the order dated July 12, 1999, with notice of entry. Although the plaintiff scheduled a closing date, the closing did not occur due to certain exceptions noted in the title report prepared by the plaintiff's title insurance company. The plaintiff then moved, inter alia, to extend its time to close. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting an extension rather than finding the plaintiff in default of the order dated July 12, 1999 (see, Stansky v. Mallon, 133 A.D.2d 392; Lee v. Caric, 125 A.D.2d 453).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit (see, Gargano v. Rubin, 200 A.D.2d 554).

SANTUCCI, J.P., ALTMAN, TOWNES and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

HOO CORP. v. 109 GRAHAM AVENUE CORP. [2d Dept 2001

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 2001
288 A.D.2d 266 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

HOO CORP. v. 109 GRAHAM AVENUE CORP. [2d Dept 2001

Case Details

Full title:HOO CORP., respondent, v. 109 GRAHAM AVENUE CORP., appellant

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

Date published: Nov 13, 2001

Citations

288 A.D.2d 266 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
732 N.Y.S.2d 868

Citing Cases

Shilian v. All Sons Elec. Corp.

“CPLR 2004 provides, in pertinent part, that the court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or…

Real Prop. Located at 616 Derby Ave. Woodmere v. All Sons Elec. Corp. (In re Shilian)

"CPLR 2004 provides, in pertinent part, that the court may extend the time fixed by any statute, rule or…