New York Investors, Inc. v. Manhattan Beach Bathing Parks Corp.
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Hudson-Port Ewen Associates, L.P. v. Chien Kuo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Laba v. Carey (N.Y. 1971)
- Gilchrest-Great Neck, Inc. v. Byers (New York Supreme Court 1960)
- Kipahulu Investment Co. v. Seltzer Partnership (Haw. Ct. App. 1983)
- Rego Crescent Corp. v. Flagship Air Service Transfer, Inc. (In re Rego Crescent Corp.) (District Court, E.D. New York 1983)
- Taccone v. Di Renzi (New York Supreme Court 1978)
- Newmark v. Weingrad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1974)
- Creative Living, Inc. v. Steinhauser (New York Supreme Court 1974)
- Gittlitz v. Lewis (New York Supreme Court 1961)
- Kopp v. Barnes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1960)
- Sun Assets Corp. v. English Evangelical Lutheran Church (New York Supreme Court 1959)
- 3120 Realty Corp. v. Tong (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1958)
- 3120 Realty Corp. v. Tong (New York Supreme Court 1957)
- Sora v. Kelly (New York Supreme Court 1957)
- Dukas v. Tolmach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1956)
- Siddall v. Painter (Delaware County Court of Common Pleas 1953)
- Plimpton v. Mattakeunk Cabin Colony, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 1934)
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
The contract of sale provided that the plaintiff’s title should be approved and insured by the Title Guarantee and Trust Company before the defendant should be obligated to accept the title and pay the purchase price. The record does not disclose an unequivocal approval of the title by the Title Guarantee and Trust Company. The defendant was not, therefore, bound to accept the title tendered.
We have examined the other questions urged by the appellant but deem it unnecessary to express any opinion in regard to them in view of our conclusion that there *165 was not such an approval of the title by the title company as to require the defendant to go on with the contract. We leave the question open whether approval, if given, would have been a sufficient answer to the objection that the title was unmarketable.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Lehman, Kellogg, O’Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.