Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Real Property Law
Buyer Entitled to Return of Deposit Because Estoppel Certificates Were Inadequate
Angelo Gordon Real Estate, Inc. v. Benlab Realty, LLC, 2023 WL 3236008, AppDiv, First Dept. (memorandum opinion)
In an action by purchaser for a judgment declaring that it is entitled to return of a $12 million deposit, seller appealed from Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment to purchaser. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the estoppel certificates provided by seller were not in compliance with the sale contract.
The parties entered into 11 purchase and sale agreements for properties on Manhattan's west side. The agreements provided that the mutual obligation to close was conditioned on simultaneous closing of all agreements. Several of the agreement required, as a condition for purchaser's obligation to close, that seller provide estoppel certificates from commercial tenants certifying that neither tenant nor landlord were in default under the lease. The agreements also allowed seller to provide seller's estoppel certificates as a substitute for certain of the tenants. Seller provided estoppel certificates indicating that the owner-landlord was not in default, but those certificates did not indicate whether tenants were in default. As a result, Supreme Court held that purchaser was entitled to return of its deposit.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.