Zev v. Merman

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 73 N.Y.2d 781, 536 N.Y.S.2d 739, 533 N.E.2d 669, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 3372

Decision Date: 11/29/1988

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Zev v. Merman, 73 N.Y.2d 781, 536 N.Y.S.2d 739, 533 N.E.2d 669, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 3372 (1988)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1988

Citation analytics

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

★Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 105 decisions

105

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.82

S.D.N.Y.6

2d Cir.3

N.Y.2

N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.2

3rd Cir.1

Most recently cited by10

2026Donovan Realty LLC v. Campers Inn Holding Corp 3rd Cir.
2026Chao-Yu C. Huang v. Shih N.Y. App. Div.
2025WT Stanley Holdings Corp. v. Piazza Carpet, LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2025B&M Zhou, LLC v. CA Plaza, LLC N.Y. App. Div.
20251211 Gilbert Ave. Holdings LLC v. Berri N.Y. Sup. Ct., Bronx Cty.
2024Small v. Faulk N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2024Vore v. Seaport Global Holdings LLC N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2024Johnson v. Giles S.D.N.Y.
202441-45 Property Owner, LLC v. CDM1, LLC S.D.N.Y.
2024DONOVAN REALTY, LLC v. CAMPERS INN HOLDING CORPORATION E.D. Pa.

Cites 3 cases

76 North Associates v. Theil Management Corp.
A. B. Murray Co. v. Lidgerwood Manufacturing Co.
Ballen v. Potter

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

Opinion

Samuel Ben Zev, Appellant, v Louis Merman et al., Respondents.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Michael C. Wimpfheimer for appellant.
Eugene W Bechtle, Jr., for respondents.

majority

Memorandum.

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

What constitutes a reasonable time for performance depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case (see, Ballen v Potter, 251 NY 224; Murray Co. v Lidgerwood Mfg. Co., 241 NY 455, 459). Included within a court’s determination of reasonableness are the nature and object of the contract, the previous conduct of the parties, the presence or absence of good faith, the experience of the parties and the possibility of prejudice or hardship to either one, as well as the specific number of days provided for performance (see, Murray Co. v Lidgerwood Mfg. Co., supra, at 459; Ballen v Potter, supra; 76 N. Assocs. v Theil Mgt. Corp., 114 AD2d 948; Schoen v Grossman, 33 Misc 2d 490, affd 17 AD2d 778; Pomeroy, Specific Performance of Contracts § 396 [3d ed]). The determination of reasonableness must by its very nature be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Appellate Division erred as a matter of law in determining that the time set by defendants for performance was reasonable.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.