You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

352 Seventh Avenue Associates v. Wasserman

Citations: 248 A.D.2d 244; 671 N.Y.S.2d 216; 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2560

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; March 16, 1998; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court of New York County issued an order on March 24, 1997, granting the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, affirming that their obligations to the plaintiff under a joint venture agreement terminated on June 14, 1993. The court determined that the plaintiff lost control of the premises, their primary contribution to the venture, due to a pending foreclosure and the appointment of a receiver. As a result, the plaintiff was unable to fulfill their obligations under the agreement. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim of bad faith by the defendants for entering into a lease with the receiver to protect their investment. The decision was unanimous, with no costs awarded.

Legal Issues Addressed

Good Faith in Contractual Relationships

Application: The court found no evidence of bad faith by the defendants in entering into a lease with the receiver to protect their investment, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

Reasoning: The court rejected the plaintiff's claim of bad faith by the defendants for entering into a lease with the receiver to protect their investment.

Impact of Foreclosure on Contractual Obligations

Application: The plaintiff's inability to maintain control of the premises due to foreclosure resulted in a failure to meet their contractual obligations, justifying the termination of the agreement.

Reasoning: The court determined that the plaintiff lost control of the premises, their primary contribution to the venture, due to a pending foreclosure and the appointment of a receiver.

Summary Judgment in Contract Disputes

Application: The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that their obligations under the joint venture agreement ended when the plaintiff lost control of the premises.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court of New York County issued an order on March 24, 1997, granting the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, affirming that their obligations to the plaintiff under a joint venture agreement terminated on June 14, 1993.