Royle Realty Co. v. Juhring
| Decision Date | 09 July 1964 |
| Citation | 21 A.D.2d 911,251 N.Y.S.2d 786 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | ROYLE REALTY CO., Inc., Respondent, v. John C. JUHRING, Appellant. |
Koback & Chase, White Plains, for appellant; Reuben Chase, White Plains, of counsel.
Close, Griffiths, McCarthy & Gaynor, White Plans, for respondent; Arthur F. Gaynor, White Plains, of counsel.
Before UGHETTA, Acting P. J., and KLEINFELD, BRENNAN, HILL and HOPKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to foreclose a vendee's lien, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court Westchester County, entered January 13, 1964 on the court's decision and opinion after a nonjury trial: (a) declaring that plaintiff has a lien on the real property contracted to be sold for the sum of $24,681.50, with interest from July 26, 1960; and (b) directing the foreclosure of said lien.
Judgment modified on the law and the facts by reducing the amount of the lien to the sum of $23,500, with interest thereon from July 26, 1960. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact contained or implicit in the decision and opinion below which may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein.
In our opinion, the vendee was justified in rejecting title because of the inability of the vendor to comply with a representation in the contract of sale concerning the presence of a sewer main on the property being sold. However, we are of the opinion that the sum of $1,181.50, paid by the vendee for a survey, was improperly included in the computation of the amount of the vendee's lien. The contract of sale provided that 'All sums paid on account of this contract, and the reasonable expenses of the examination of the title to said premises are hereby made liens thereon.' There was no contract provision requiring the vendee to obtain a survey, nor proof that the survey was an essential part of the examination of title. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the vendee may not be afforded a lien for the amount paid for such survey (Cf. Elterman v. Hyman, 192 N.Y. 113, 84 N.E. 937; Bulkley v. Rouken Glen, Inc., 222 App.Div. 570, 577, 226 N.Y.S. 544, 551, affd. 248 N.Y. 647, 162 N.E. 560; Terzo v. Stratford, Sup., 104 N.Y.S.2d 278, 282).
Defendant's other contentions have been examined, and, in our opinion, are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marine Midland Bank-New York v. Batson
...an equitable interest in the property, Holden v. Efficient Craftsman Corp., 234 N.Y. 437, 440, 138 N.E. 85, 86; Royle Realty Co., Inc. v. Juhring, 21 A.D.2d 911, 251 N.Y.S.2d 786 and may be the subject of specific enforcement. Kroll v. Zimmerman, 274 App.Div. 1070, 85 N.Y.S.2d 642; Radiant ......
-
Honua Fifth Ave. LLC v. 400 Fifth Realty LLC
...for the crediting of interest to the purchase price of the property, and therefore to the lien ( see Royle Realty Co. v. Juhring, 21 A.D.2d 911, 251 N.Y.S.2d 786 [2d Dept.1964], affd.16 N.Y.2d 566, 260 N.Y.S.2d 839, 208 N.E.2d 784 [1965] ), the Third Amended Agreement, which is the governin......
-
Tompkins v. R. B. D. Land Exchange, Inc.
...118 N.Y. 419, 23 N.E. 570). While survey expenses are not usually considered to be required to examine title (see Royle Realty Co. v. Juhring, 21 A.D.2d 911, 251 N.Y.S.2d 786), they are allowable here because the contract specifically required defendant to make a survey. At first glance, up......
-
Royle Realty Co. v. Juhring
...Court of Appeals of New York. May 20, 1965. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 21 A.D.2d 911, 251 N.Y.S.2d 786. Assignee of purchaser brought action against vendor to foreclose a purchaser's lien under contract for purchase of The Supreme Court, Special Term, ......