From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

James v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 27, 1994
205 A.D.2d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

June 27, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellants' claim, there was ample evidence that their bad faith resulting in their loss of a mortgage commitment warranted the forfeiture of their downpayment on the contract of sale (see, Falk v. Goodman, 7 N.Y.2d 87, 90; BTS, Inc. v. Webny Corp., 157 A.D.2d 638, 639; Silva v. Celella, 153 A.D.2d 847, 848). The plaintiffs, by letter dated May 28, 1991, specified that time was of the essence and directed a June 10, 1991, closing date. That notice was reasonable (see, Mohen v Mooney, 162 A.D.2d 664, 665; Sohayegh v. Oberlander, 155 A.D.2d 436; Zev v. Merman, 134 A.D.2d 555, 557, affd 73 N.Y.2d 781). Bracken, J.P., Miller, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

James v. James

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 27, 1994
205 A.D.2d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

James v. James

Case Details

Full title:ALPHAEUS JAMES et al., Respondents, v. AUDREY JAMES et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jun 27, 1994

Citations

205 A.D.2d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
614 N.Y.S.2d 907

Citing Cases

Charchan v. Robert Wilkins

The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal…

1111 Myrtle Ave. Grp. LLC v. Myrtle Prop. Holdings LLC (In re 1111 Myrtle Ave. Grp. LLC)

The Court concludes that, under the circumstances, the thirteen day notice was reasonable. As an initial…