Buoninfante v. Legacy Development USA Corp.
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Armonk Snack Mart, Inc. v. Robert Porpora Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Armonk Snack Mart, Inc. v. Robert Porpora Realty Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- CNR Healthcare Network, Inc. v. 86 Lefferts Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Zeitoune v. Cohen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Sau Ting Cheng v. Prime Design Realty, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Stojowski v. D'Sa (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Tedone v. Success Homes, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Manzo v. Gross (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
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, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), entered June 24, 2002, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint, and is in favor of the defendants and against them in the principal sum of $76,500 on the defendants’ counterclaim to retain the contract deposit as liquidated damages upon the plaintiffs’ breach of the contract, and the defendants’ counterclaim alleging trespass.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The determination of a trial court after a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is not supported by legally sufficient evidence or could not have been reached by any fair interpretation of the evidence (see A & S Trucking Serv. v New York State Thruway Auth., 268 AD2d 493 [2000]). The evidence in this case was legally sufficient for the trial court to conclude that the plaintiffs failed to substantially perform their contractual obligations, or were not ready, willing and able to satisfy those obligations not yet performed (see Johnson v Phelan, 281 AD2d 394, 395 [2001]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. In addition, the defendants were entitled to retain the contract deposit as liquidated damages under the contract for the plaintiffs’ breach in refusing to close (see Cooper v Bosse, 85 AD2d 616, 618 [1981]). The defendants were also properly awarded damages for trespass based upon the rental value of the property (see Litwin v Town of Huntington, 248 AD2d 361 [1998]).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.