BPL Development Corp. v. Cappel

Decision Date18 January 1982
Citation86 A.D.2d 591,446 N.Y.S.2d 134
PartiesBPL DEVELOPMENT CORP., Respondent, v. Milton CAPPEL et al., Appellants.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky & Armentano, P. C., Mineola (John M. Armentano and Samuel S. Tripp, Mineola, of counsel), for appellants.

Crowe & Deegan, Glen Cove (Francis W. Deegan, Glen Cove, of counsel), for respondent.

Before DAMIANI, J. P., and LAZER, COHALAN and BRACKEN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 10, 1981, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, directed them to deliver to the plaintiff a deed to the property in question.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

On March 3, 1980, the defendants entered into a contract to sell real property to the plaintiff. Paragraph 8 of the rider to the contract provides as follows:

"This contract is conditional upon the purchaser obtaining approval of a proposed subdivision from the City of Glen Cove and other governmental approvals necessary to file a map in the Nassau County Clerk's Office for the subdivision of the subject property in conformity with the R-4 Zone (1 & 2 family houses) of the City of Glen Cove for Lot 71, using the existing 25 foot entrance as an access street to the new development by May 19, 1980. If the purchaser is able to receive such approvals to file a subdivision map covering the subject property within said period of time, the parties shall close title as purchaser and seller according to the terms of this contract within 15 days after the filing of said map in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Nassau. If purchaser is unable to obtain said approvals and to file said map with the Clerk of the County of Nassau within said period of time, then either party shall have the right to cancel this contract and upon such cancellation the attorney for the seller shall return the down payment paid hereunder and the parties shall have no further rights one as against the other."

Thereafter, the plaintiff applied to the Glen Cove Planning Board for subdivision approval. On April 1, 1980, the Planning Board granted plaintiff a conditional approval, deeming the subdivision a "minor subdivision". Upon learning of the conditional approval, the plaintiff notified the defendants of its desire to close and the closing was set for ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 cases
  • B&A Realty Mgmt., LLC v. Gloria
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 17, 2021
    ...solely for its benefit (see Jorjill Holding v. Grieco Assoc., Inc., 6 A.D.3d 500, 502, 775 N.Y.S.2d 75 ; cf. BPL Dev. Corp. v. Cappel, 86 A.D.2d 591, 446 N.Y.S.2d 134 ). The language of the cancellation clause clearly provided that, if the purchaser failed to obtain the necessary government......
  • W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. Giancontieri
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 13, 1989
    ...of the purchaser, even though a particular clause may itself provide that either side can cancel. For example, in BPL Dev. Corp. v. Cappel, 86 A.D.2d 591, 446 N.Y.S.2d 134, a clause in a contract for the sale of real property conditioned the sale upon the purchaser obtaining subdivision app......
  • Oak Bee Corp. v. N.E. Blankman & Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 20, 1990
    ...of the purchaser (see, e.g., Laxrand Constr. Corp. v. R.S.C.A. Realty Corp., 135 A.D.2d 685, 522 N.Y.S.2d 584; BPL Dev. Corp. v. Cappel, 86 A.D.2d 591, 446 N.Y.S.2d 134), and that the party for whose benefit a condition is inserted in an agreement may waive the condition and accept performa......
  • Story v. Wood
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 9, 1991
    ...benefit of the prospective purchasers, who had the right to waive them and compel the sellers' performance (see, BPL Dev. Corp. v. Cappel, 86 A.D.2d 591, 446 N.Y.S.2d 134, lv. denied 56 N.Y.2d 506, 453 N.Y.S.2d 1025, 438 N.E.2d 880). The conditions were never any material consideration for ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT