This decision involved a motion by defendants pursuant to the CPLR §3211, seeking to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a cause of action. The plaintiff cross‑moved, seeking summary judgment, arguing there are no issues of fact and they are entitled to the ultimate relief.

The plaintiff, owner of the subject property (seller), entered into a contract with the defendant (purchaser), pursuant to which the purchaser was to purchase the property. The purchaser had paid a down payment. In July 2020, the contract was amended, pursuant to which additional down payment monies were provided. The seller was permitted to demand time of the essence (TOE) with 30 days’ notice.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]