Opinion
March 26, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William H. Keniry, J.).
"A party need not state specifically that time is of the essence, as long as the notice specifies a time on which to close and warns that failure to close on that date will result in default" (Sohayegh v Oberlander, 155 A.D.2d 436, 438). Here, the notice sent by defendant's counsel to plaintiffs' counsel stating that defendant "will not consent to adjourn closing beyond 10/3/85 for any reason" was insufficient to render time of the essence, since there was no clear and unequivocal warning that failure to close on that date would be considered a default. Under these circumstances, defendant had no basis to refuse to close, and plaintiffs were properly awarded specific performance of the contract.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Kassal, JJ.