Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003

Elsaeidy v. Guarino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided December 8, 2003

2 A.D.3d 486; 767 N.Y.S.2d 889

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Ali-Hasan v. St. Peter's Health Partners Med. Assoc., P.C. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
Matek, Incorporated v. International Business Machines Corporation (District Court, District of Columbia 2024)
Brooklyn Historic Railway Ass'n v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Watermelons Plus, Inc. v. New York City Department of Education (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

In an action to compel specific performance of an agreement to purchase certain real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D. Schmidt, J.), dated September 9, 2002, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ assertions, “[a] party has an absolute, unqualified right to terminate a contract on notice pursuant to an unconditional termination clause without court *487inquiry into whether the termination was activated by an ulterior motive” (Big Apple Car v City of New York, 204 AD2d 109, 111 [1994]; see A.J. Temple Marble & Tile v Long Is. R.R., 256 AD2d 526 [1998]). Since the unconditional cancellation clause permitted the defendants to cancel the contract for any reason, the cancellation was authorized by the parties’ contract and did not constitute an actionable breach (see A.J. Temple Marble & Tile v Long Is. R.R., supra; J.D.’s Tire & Battery Ctr. v Automobile Club of N.Y., 255 AD2d 361 [1998]; Big Apple Car v City of New York, supra).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or are without merit. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.