Hegeman v. Bedford
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Please Me, LLC v. State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- 184 Joralemon, LLC v. Brklyn Hts Condos, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- 184 Joralemon, LLC v. Brklyn Hts Condos, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
- Fink v. 218 Hamilton, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2024)
- Herman v. 818 Woodward, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Rodrigues NBA, LLC v. Allied XV, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Kok Chai Lee v. Robertson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Calcagno v. Roberts (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Mills v. Chauvin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Mills v. Chauvin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- DiBartolo v. Battery Place Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Bossert v. Fratalone (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
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, for specific performance of a stipulation to execute a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowd, J.), dated January 9, 2003, which denied her motions for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment, and granted the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff contends that she was entitled to specific performance of a stipulation to execute a contract for the sale of real property because the stipulation did not make time of the essence and the defendant’s subsequent unilateral notice of when the contract was to be executed did not give her a reasonable amount of time to execute the contract. This contention is without merit.
While the question of what constitutes a reasonable time is usually a question of fact, where the facts are undisputed, what is a reasonable time becomes a question of law, and the case is appropriate for summary judgment (see Spagna v Licht, 87 AD2d 626 [1982]). Whether a party was given reasonable time to perform the contract depends upon the nature, purpose, and circumstances of each case (see Ben Zev v Merman, 73 NY2d 781, 783 [1988]). Factors relevant to such an inquiry include the nature and object of the contract, the previous conduct of the
The plaintiffs remaining contentions either are academic in light of our determination or without merit. Ritter, J.P., S. Miller, Goldstein and Adams, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.