Contracts · MBE-tested
Marianne Lane, Respondent, v. Stanley Seltzer et al., Appellants
303 A.D.2d 378755 N.Y.S.2d 663·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·2003·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Marianne Lane, Respondent, v Stanley Seltzer et al., Appellants.
[755 NYS2d 663]
[MAJORITY]
—In an action for the return of a down payment on a real estate contract, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), entered May 24, 2002, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and directed the return of the plaintiffs down payment.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
When a contract’s language is unambiguous, a court will enforce its plain meaning rather than rewrite the agreement (see Laba v Carey, 29 NY2d 302, 308 [1971]). Contrary to the defendants’ contentions, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. The defendants’ failure to provide documentation to remove a cloud on title arising from a neighbor’s encroachment constituted a breach of contract entitling the plaintiff to the return of her down payment (see Goldsmith v Layton, 300 AD2d 353 [2002]; W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157 [1990]). Santucci, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.