From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rozenfeld v. Triangle Holdings Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 25, 2004
11 A.D.3d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2003-09107

October 25, 2004.

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated July 31, 2003, which denied his motion for leave to amend the complaint to add Yehuda Nelkenbaum and Primestate, Inc., as additional parties, and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Before: Smith, J.P., Crane, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff acknowledged in his affidavit in opposition to the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment that "[t]he parties ultimately agreed to a date of October 10, 2002, at 5:00 P.M. for a closing for a transfer of the premises, [with] time of the essence." On that date the plaintiff was not ready, willing, and able to proceed with the closing in accordance with the terms of the contract of sale.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit ( see Fourteen Sharot Place Realty Corp. v. Miceli, 125 AD2d 634, 637).


Summaries of

Rozenfeld v. Triangle Holdings Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 25, 2004
11 A.D.3d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

Rozenfeld v. Triangle Holdings Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MORTON ROZENFELD, Appellant, v. TRIANGLE HOLDINGS, INC., Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 25, 2004

Citations

11 A.D.3d 668 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
783 N.Y.S.2d 294

Citing Cases

Ahmad v. Pahlavan

"When a contract for the sale of real property does not state that time is of the essence, either party is…