O'Connell v. Clear Holding Co.
Grace O'Connell v. Clear Holding Company
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
In an action for specific performance of a contract to. sell a cooperative apartment, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), entered April 16, 1986, which denied her motion for summary judgment.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.
There are no questions of fact to be determined at a trial. Time was not made of the essence by the designation that *531 closing would take place "on or before” a stated date. Accordingly, the plaintiffs inability to close until a few days after that date should have been given favorable consideration by the defendant and the adjournment requested should have been granted by it instead of the defendant declaring a default by the plaintiff and refusing to proceed to closing (see, Tarlo v Robinson, 118 AD2d 561 ). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(time was not made of the essence by a contract provision stating that closing would take place “on or before” a certain date)
Cited by 11 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.