ABYSSINIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Plaintiffs-res-ap, v. DAVID BISTRICER Defendants-Appellants- res

14823-14824. ABYSSINIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Plaintiffs-res-ap, v. DAVID BISTRICER Defendants-Appellants- res — Stahl & Zelmanovitz, New York (Joseph Zelmanovitz of counsel), for appellants-res — Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf LLP, New York (Mel P. Barkan of counsel), for respondentsap — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered October 10, 2013, after a nonjury trial, awarding plaintiffs sums of money as against defendant Clipper Equity Holdings, LLC, dismissing plaintiffs' claims against defendant Bistricer, and dismissing the counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 9, 2013, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

14823-14824. ABYSSINIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Plaintiffs-res-ap, v. DAVID BISTRICER Defendants-Appellants- res — Stahl & Zelmanovitz, New York (Joseph Zelmanovitz of counsel), for appellants-res — Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf LLP, New York (Mel P. Barkan of counsel), for respondentsap — Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered October 10, 2013, after a nonjury trial, awarding plaintiffs sums of money as against defendant Clipper Equity Holdings, LLC, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims against defendant Bistricer, and dismissing the counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered September 9, 2013, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The trial court’s factual findings are based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, and its legal conclusions are correct. Neither delivery of the letter of intent nor the closing of the contract to purchase Starrett City was a condition precedent to the enforceability of the parties’ obligations under §18 of the letter of intent (see Schuler-Haas Elec. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 40 NY2d 883 [1976]). Execution of the letter of intent by plaintiff organization was not unreasonably delayed, especially in light of the fact that defendants were still making efforts to obtain execution until just days before the letter was signed.

ABYSSINIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Plaintiffs-res-ap, v. DAVID BISTRICER Defendants-Appellants- res

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal