contingency clause in New York

2026The court erred in determining that defendants raised an issue of fact with respect to whether the contingency clause in the lease created a condition precedent that had to be satisfied before NCTBP's obligations under the lease arose ( see generally Chrisanntha , Inc. v deBaptiste , 196 AD3d 1033, 1036 [4th Dept 2021]).

2020Plaintiff's alleged damages, as they relate to legal expenses defending the specific performance action, may be found to be proximately related to defendant's negligent advice related to the issue of the contingency clause ( see Rudolf v Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker & Sauer , 8 NY3d at 443 ).

2018Instead plaintiff sought a loan in a greater amount, and having done so, breached the contract as a matter of law ( see Rice v Buie , 259 AD2d 360 [1st Dept 1999]; Post v Mengoni , 198 AD2d 487 [2d Dept 1993]; Silva v Celella , 153 AD2d 847 [2d Dept 1989]).

2018On February 14, 2017, defendant issued the time of essence letter with a closing date of March 1, 2017, which was reasonable in light of the absence of a contingency clause in the contract of sale ( see Beth Equities v Silgo Greenwich Assoc. , 223 AD2d 367 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 802 [1996]; 2626 Bway LLC v Broadway Metro Assoc., LP , 85 AD3d 456 [1st Dept 2011]; cf. Miller v Almquist , 241 AD2d at 185 [finding time to close not reasonable where delay was merely to finalize documentation of approved financing and buyers were not experienced in purchase of real estate]).

2018Instead plaintiff sought a loan in a greater amount, and having done so, breached the contract as a matter of law ( see Rice v Buie , 259 AD2d 360 [1st Dept 1999]; Post v Mengoni , 198 AD2d 487 [2d Dept 1993]; Silva v Celella , 153 AD2d 847 [2d Dept 1989]).

2018Instead plaintiff sought a loan in a greater amount, and having done so, breached the contract as a matter of law ( see Rice v Buie , 259 AD2d 360 [1st Dept 1999]; Post v Mengoni , 198 AD2d 487 [2d Dept 1993]; Silva v Celella , 153 AD2d 847 [2d Dept 1989]).

2018On February 14, 2017, defendant issued the time of essence letter with a closing date of March 1, 2017, which was reasonable in light of the absence of a contingency clause in the contract of sale ( see Beth Equities v Silgo Greenwich Assoc. , 223 AD2d 367 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 802 [1996]; 2626 Bway LLC v Broadway Metro Assoc., LP , 85 AD3d 456 [1st Dept 2011]; cf. Miller v Almquist , 241 AD2d at 185 [finding time to close not reasonable where delay was merely to finalize documentation of approved financing and buyers were not experienced in purchase of real estate]).

2003Where no specific deadline is provided in a mortgage contingency clause, a reasonable time for cancellation thereunder is implied (see Tendler v Lazar, 141 AD2d 717 [1988]).

1998The notice provision contained in the contingency clause — which was not, as plaintiff suggests, solely for its benefit, as it provided Fobare, well in advance of the closing date, with certainty as to whether plaintiff would invoke the condition — is unambiguous; by its plain terms both parties’ contractual obligations automatically terminated when plaintiff failed to furnish the requisite notice within the time allowed for doing so (see, Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 695 ; W.W.W.

1998Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 ; cf., Maxton Bldrs. v Lo Galbo, 68 NY2d 373, 378 ).

1998Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 ; cf., Maxton Bldrs. v Lo Galbo, 68 NY2d 373, 378 ).

1996See , Matter of Mulford v. Shaffer , 124 A.D.2d 876 (3d Dept 1986) (charge of untrustworthiness and incompetence supported when record showed broker inserted broad, legally significant contingency clause, failed to suggest agreement be reviewed by attorney, gave advice re legal effect of provisions and charged a fee for preparing documents); Matter of Sorrentino v. Shaffer , 125 A.D.2d 956 (4th Dept 1986) (charge of untrustworthiness and incompetence sustained when broker discouraged purchaser from seeking legal advice, failed to use a form advising parties to seek legal advice, and failed to

1996See , Matter of Mulford v. Shaffer , 124 A.D.2d 876 (3d Dept 1986) (charge of untrustworthiness and incompetence supported when record showed broker inserted broad, legally significant contingency clause, failed to suggest agreement be reviewed by attorney, gave advice re legal effect of provisions and charged a fee for preparing documents); Matter of Sorrentino v. Shaffer , 125 A.D.2d 956 (4th Dept 1986) (charge of untrustworthiness and incompetence sustained when broker discouraged purchaser from seeking legal advice, failed to use a form advising parties to seek legal advice, and failed to

1995Co., 70 NY2d 966, 968 ) or affirmatively misled defendants into believing that the clause would not be enforced (see generally, Nassau Trust Co. v Montrose Concrete Prods.

1990The record is not adequate, however, to determine whether an application for a mortgage loan of $154,000, the amount stated in the contingency clause, would also have been denied since we may not consider Richard Cross’ hearsay testimony that the bank would approve a loan of no more than $147,600 (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 ).

1990Assocs. v Giancontieri, 152 AD2d 333, 334 ).

1989Another illustration of a contingency clause inserted for the benefit of a purchaser is set forth in Regional Gravel Prods, v Stanton ( 135 AD2d 1079 ).

1984Corp. v Cappel, 86 AD2d 591 ; Poteralski v Colombe, 84 AD2d 887 ; Spuches v Royal View, 13 AD2d 815, 816 ).

1984Corp. v Cappel, 86 AD2d 591 ; Poteralski v Colombe, 84 AD2d 887 ; Spuches v Royal View, 13 AD2d 815, 816 ).

1984Moreover, absent more specific language in the contract, plaintiff is not duty bound under the type of clause in issue here to notify the vendor by the 45th day of his position vis-a-vis the mortgage because it has been held that notice may be sent a few days after expiration of the time set in a contingency clause (cf. Waskewich v Redding, 97 AD2d 758 ; Sainato v Hormozdi, 87 AD2d 625 ).

1984Corp. v Callahan, 275 App Div 857 ; Mullen v Lauro, NYLJ, May 23, 1979, p 16, col 4 [Leone, J.]) Hence, if the contingency clause was considered solely for plaintiff’s benefit, there would be some authority to support his position (cf. De Freitas v Holley, supra; BPL Dev.

1984Moreover, absent more specific language in the contract, plaintiff is not duty bound under the type of clause in issue here to notify the vendor by the 45th day of his position vis-a-vis the mortgage because it has been held that notice may be sent a few days after expiration of the time set in a contingency clause (cf. Waskewich v Redding, 97 AD2d 758 ; Sainato v Hormozdi, 87 AD2d 625 ).

1984Corp. v Cappel, 86 AD2d 591 ; Poteralski v Colombe, 84 AD2d 887 ; Spuches v Royal View, 13 AD2d 815, 816 ).

1924In Thaddeus Davids Company v. Hoffman-La Roche Chemical Works ( 178 App. Div. 855 ) the defendant had contracted to sell to plaintiff goods known as carbolic acid crystals.