From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Main Street Xata, Ltd. v. Valine Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 15, 2008
47 A.D.3d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)

Opinion

No. 2006-11596.

January 15, 2008.

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), entered November 30, 2006, which, upon a decision of the same court entered March 21, 2006, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against it, directing specific performance of the contract.

Thomas F. Farley, P.C., Armonk, N.Y., for appellant.

Jeffrey A. Kosterich Associates, P.C., Tuckahoe, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: Crane, J.P., Rivera, Florio and Balkin, JJ.


Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff corporate vendee, Main Street Xata, Ltd., failed to meet its burden of showing that it had the financial capacity to purchase the subject property ( see Dairo v Rockaway Blvd. Props., LLC, 44 AD3d 602; Backer v Bouza Falco Co., 28 AD3d 503; Cheemanlall v Toolsee, 17 AD3d 392, 393). That the principal of the plaintiff corporate vendee may have had the ability to close did not establish that the plaintiff had such ability. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in directing specific performance of the contract.


Summaries of

Main Street Xata, Ltd. v. Valine Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 15, 2008
47 A.D.3d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
Case details for

Main Street Xata, Ltd. v. Valine Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:MAIN STREET XATA, LTD., Respondent, v. VALINE REALTY CORP., Appellant

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

Date published: Jan 15, 2008

Citations

47 A.D.3d 688 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)
2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 239
848 N.Y.S.2d 899

Citing Cases

Main St. v. Valine Realty

Decided April 29, 2008. Appeal from the 2d Dept: 47 AD3d 688. Motions for Leave to Appeal…

Katzman 2008 Grat 1 Portion II Tr. UAD v. Prasad

identified as the purchaser in the contract of sale (NYSCEF Doc No. 62 at 2). That Katzman or these entities…