Huntington Mining Holdings, Inc. v. Cottontail Plaza, Inc.

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 60 N.Y.2d 997, 471 N.Y.S.2d 267, 459 N.E.2d 492, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3597

Decision Date: 12/1/1983

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Huntington Mining Holdings, Inc. v. Cottontail Plaza, Inc., 60 N.Y.2d 997, 471 N.Y.S.2d 267, 459 N.E.2d 492, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3597 (1983)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1983

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 3% most-cited · cited by 84 decisions

Citing decisions

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.71

Bankr. S.D.N.Y.3

Bankr. E.D.N.Y.2

2d Cir.1

E.D.N.Y1

E.D.N.Y.1

Most recently cited by10

2023Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. v. Tri-State Candy Wholesale, Inc. E.D.N.Y
2022Bullaro v. Ledo, Inc. N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.
2021Thitro Metal Prods., Inc. v. Farber Indus., LLC N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty.
2020FMTB BH LLC - Adversary Proceeding Bankr. E.D.N.Y.
2019GLND 1945, LLC v. Ballard N.Y. App. Div.
2018Mendoza v. Sterling Props., Inc. N.Y. App. Div.
2016Malekan v. 701-709 Chester St, LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2016Lebovits v. PHL Variable Insurance Co. E.D.N.Y.
2015Liberty Affordable Housing, Inc. v. Maple Court Apartments N.Y. App. Div.
2015LIBERTY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, INC. v. MAPLE COURT APARTMENT N.Y. App. Div.

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Huntington Mining Holdings, Inc., Formerly Known as Huntington Mining & Realty World, Ltd., Appellant, v Cottontail Plaza, Inc., Respondent.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Albert R. Pincus and Michael D. Solomon for appellant.
Andrew J. Connick for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Though defendant seller’s anticipatory breach of contract relieved plaintiff purchaser of its obligation to tender performance, this did not discharge plaintiff’s obligation to show that it was ready and able to perform its own contractual undertakings on the closing date, in order to secure specific performance. (Stawski v Epstein, 67 AD2d 681; Friederang v Aldo Co., 199 App Div 127.) Plaintiff insists that, while it lacked its own funds to purchase the property on the scheduled closing date, it was nonetheless able to perform because it had obtained a commitment from another person. However, as the Appellate Division found, this person was not asked for financing until nearly a year after the anticipated closing, and plaintiff failed to produce any other evidence of its capacity to perform. Specific performance was therefore inappropriate.

Since there has already been a trial upon stipulated facts and extensive deposition testimony, and no trial errors are alleged, there is no occasion for a further hearing on the issue of plaintiff’s ability to perform, as plaintiff requests.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.