Opinion
April 8, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lockman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff's contention that rescission is warranted based on an alleged breach of good faith and fair dealing by the defendants is without merit. Implied in all contracts is a covenant of fair dealing and good faith ( see, Van Valkenburgh, Nooger Neville v. Hayden Publ. Co., 30 N.Y.2d 34, cert denied 409 U.S. 875). However, whether a party to a contract has failed to act in good faith is generally a fact question for the jury ( see, Zilg v. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 515 F. Supp. 716, 719; Coan v Estate of Chapin, 156 A.D.2d 318, 319). Since the defendants offered testimony that the zoning changes that ultimately affected the subject property were not under consideration at the time that they contracted to sell the property to the plaintiff and that the changes adopted were not directed at the plaintiff or the subject property specifically, we find that the jury's verdict was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence ( see, Policastro v. Savarese, 171 A.D.2d 849, 852; Nelson v. City of New Rochelle, 154 A.D.2d 661; Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are not properly before us ( see, Matter of Glazer v. Hankin, 50 A.D.2d 924) and are, in any event, without merit. Thompson, J.P., Joy, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.