Safka Holdings, LLC v. 220 W. 57th St. Ltd. P'ship

• Decision Date: 27 September 2016
• Citation: Safka Holdings, LLC v. 220 W. 57th St. Ltd. P'ship, 142 A.D.3d 865, 37 N.Y.S.3d 546, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 6152 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016)
• Parties: SAFKA HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 220 WEST 57TH STREET LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant–Respondent. 220 West 57th Street Limited Partnership, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Safka Holdings, LLC, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

142 A.D.3d 865

37 N.Y.S.3d 546

2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 06152

SAFKA HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant,

v.220 WEST 57TH STREET LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Defendant–Respondent.

220 West 57th Street Limited Partnership, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Safka Holdings, LLC, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Sept. 27, 2016.

Lebensfeld Sharon & Schwartz P.C., New York (Alan M. Lebensfeld of counsel), for appellant.

Norton Rose Fulbright U.S. LLP, New York (Felice B. Galant of counsel), for respondent.

FRIEDMAN, J.P., ANDRIAS, RICHTER, GISCHE, KAHN, JJ.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered June 29, 2015, dismissing the complaint and awarding defendant the total amount of $128,047.65, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered May 8, 2014, which, among other things, granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted it partial summary judgment as to liability on its counterclaim for attorneys' fees, and an order, same court and Justice, entered February 9, 2015, which denied plaintiff's motion to reject a special referee's report, and granted defendant's cross motion to confirm the report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Appeals from orders, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

In this breach of contract action stemming from a failed real estate transaction between plaintiff, the prospective buyer, and defendant, the prospective seller, the motion court correctly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.Defendant demonstrated that it fulfilled its contractual obligations by timely providing all requested due diligence information.Plaintiff's claims that defendant's responses were either incomplete or provided too late are inconsistent and unsupported by the record, and thus insufficient to defeat defendant's motion.

Even if an issue of fact...