Category Archives: Vendor/Purchaser Disputes

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

Was Contract Enforceable/Barred Under the Statute of Frauds?

On January 23, 2006, Yaron Cohen, as purchaser, and Vivian Holder, as seller, executed a document purporting to be a contract for the sale of a four-family brownstone located in Brooklyn, for the purchase price of $300,000. But the document, which was provided by Cohen, did not indicate the date or place of the closing.

About 17 months later, Cohen sent a letter to Holder setting a time of the essence closing date of May 22, 2007. The closing did not occur on that date and Cohen commenced an action seeking specific performance. Holder interposed an answer and asserted counterclaims seeking damages for fraud and for rescission of the purported contract. In 2015, Holder transferred the property to 143 Hancock St., LLC. Cohen then filed a separate action against 143 Hancock. Holder and Corey Holder, as executor of Vivian’s estate, was substituted as the defendant in the action commenced against Holder. The two actions were consolidated.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Were Brooklyn Property Purchase Rights Abrogated by Passage of Time?

A real estate contract vendee had the right to purchase a parcel in Brooklyn. But that right was subject to a third-party’s right of first refusal to buy the lot. As a recent case illustrates, the Court was required to navigate those concurrent provisions after several years of failure to close on the contract, on the one hand, or exercise of the right of first refusal, on the other.

On January 17, 2017, Parkway Trading Group Corp. commenced an action for specific performance against Yehuda Blesofsky, alleging that, on or about February 20, 2008, Blesofsky, as seller, and Parkway, as purchaser, entered into a contract for the purchase of  328 Kingston Avenue in Brooklyn for $640,000.00 with a closing date of on or about August 15, 2008.

This was originally published on the SGR Blog.

Did Seller Hide Defect in House from Buyer/Inspector?

It is a customary practice for a homebuyer to personally—or through a professional—inspect the residence either before a contract is signed or the transfer of title takes place. And New York is a “real property (caveat emptor) buyer beware” jurisdiction when it comes to such inspections. But what is a Court to do when the buyer discovers defects after the sale closed and claims that the conditions were deliberately concealed by the seller?

In a small claims action, Alexandra Daquila-Imbruglia sought to recover $10,000 from Universal Building Solutions Corp., its principal, Christopher Reno, and Our Island Real Estate, Inc., based on the alleged concealment of a defect in a house that she and her husband purchased.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Can Purchaser Nevertheless Recover Down Payment?

Contracts for the sale of real property as often as not initially provide for an “on or about” closing date–with time not being of the essence. But what happens when the closing date passes and the buyer subsequently contends that the seller could not deliver clean title as required by the contract? May the buyer recover his deposit without first setting a time of the essence closing date before which the seller can clear the title defect?

In November 2006, Fermin Xelo entered into a contract to purchase residential real property from Ena M. Hamilton for $854,900.  Under the contract, Xelo paid a down payment of $15,000, deposited in the escrow account of Hamilton’s attorney, Michael Singer. The contract provided that the closing was to occur on or about 60 days after the execution of the contract.

This was originally posted to the SGR Blog.

“Mox Nix” If Old or New Law Controlled.

Both owners of contiguous real property have the right to landscape their side of the boundary. But, as a recent case illustrates, a Court may have to decide if, as and when such plantings and maintenance on or across the line rose to the level of adverse possession.

E. 12th St. Holding LLC sued Mousa Lati, the owner of an adjoining property, for adverse possession, trespass, and damages.

Holding’s predecessors (Bettina and Nathan Avidan) bought the property in 1995 as husband and wife; built a new house which was completed in 1998; and transferred title to an LLC in 2015 of which the Avidans are the managing members.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Caveat emptor”—or “buyer beware”—historically was rule number one of real property purchase and sales. But did the rule still control as to the duty to discover or disclose that a certificate of occupancy had been voided?

David Chapman sought damages for, fraud arising from his purchase of a home from Adam and Jennifer Jacobs. Chapman alleged that the Jacobs represented that there was a certificate of occupancy for a pole barn situated on the property when, in fact, the Town of Farmington voided the certificate of occupancy when it discovered that the barn encroached on the adjoining property.

This was originally posted on the SGR Blog.

Contracts for the sale of residential property often contain both generic and specific provisions with respect to the purchaser’s right to inspect the premises between the time the contract is signed and the actual closing and transfer of title. But, as a recent case illustrates, the scope of that inspection right may nevertheless be the basis of a dispute.

Oren Mor and Hadar Laor (for convenience, the “Mors”) owned a residential condominium unit 3C at 15 Hubert Street in Manhattan. Jessica Fisher signed a contract to buy the unit for $3,875,000, with a $387,500 deposit. She contemplated making extensive alterations to meet her specific requirements. Fisher suffered from various medical ailments, including allergy-induced asthma, which required her to investigate an apartment’s HVAC units and soundproofing. And alleged that she was promised unfettered access to the apartment prior to the closing so that she could perform various inspections. Despite purported oral representations about her access to the apartment, Fisher claimed that her request for an asbestos inspection was denied. She claimed that this was a routine inspection and required in order to submit any alteration plans.