From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Karamatzanis v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 26, 1992
181 A.D.2d 618 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

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.


Summaries of

Karamatzanis v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 26, 1992
181 A.D.2d 618 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Karamatzanis v. Cohen

Case Details

Full title:NICK KARAMATZANIS et al., Respondents, v. JASMINA COHEN, Appellant

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

Date published: Mar 26, 1992

Citations

181 A.D.2d 618 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
581 N.Y.S.2d 339

Citing Cases

Westreich v. Bosler

Regardless of whether the notice to plaintiffs was reasonable, plaintiffs did not voice their objections…

Miracle N.Y. Props. v. Nayber 18 LLC

"A party need not state specifically that time is of the essence, as long as the notice specifies a time on…