Real Property Law

In an action by contract vendee for specific performance of a sale contract, both parties appealed from Supreme Court’s order denying contract vendee’s summary judgment motion but requiring seller to return contract vendee’s deposit. The Appellate Division modified to grant contract vendee’s summary judgment motion, holding that seller breached by insisting on performance of conditions the contract did not require.
In 2019, seller obtained a permit from the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) authorizing subdivision of seller’s 4.7 acre parcel to create a new parcel then occupied by a garage. The permit authorized construction of a single-family residence within the garage’s footprint, and provided that for any deed conveying either of the two parcels, an access easement would be grated for each lot to make shared use of a driveway that straddled the boundary line. In 2021, contract vendee hired an engineering firm to study the feasibility of building a home with a 5500 square foot footprint on the garage lot, and then contracted to buy that lot for $775,000. Contract vendee paid a $50,000 deposit. The contract provided that if contract vendee sought to connect a driveway to the existing shared driveway, “access” would be limited to one house, and if a second house were constructed, contract vendee would pursue access from the main road to both houses. Before closing, seller forwarded a proposed deed granting contract vendee a license to use the shared driveway which “shall be extinguished” of contract vendee were to build a second house on the lot. Seller denied contract vendee’s request to change the language to create an easement rather than a license. Contract vendee then declared time of the essence and scheduled a new closing date, requiring the new proposed deed to include an easement. Seller did not agree and failed to submit any closing date. Contract vendee then agreed to provide a curb cut to connect his driveway directly to the main road to facilitate an immediate closing, but seller did not respond. Contract vendee then brought an action for specific performance and moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court concluded that there was no valid contract and dismissed the specific performance claim but required seller to return the deposit. Both parties appealed.
In holding that contract vendee was entitled to summary judgment, the Appellate Division relied on the language of the APA permit requiring an easement for any deed to either of the subdivide parcels. The court concluded that in light of the permit language, the contract required grant of an easement to contract vendee. Moreover, the court noted that while the contract required contract vendee to pursue direct access if contract vendee built a second house, in this case contract vendee offered to provide direct access. As a result, seller had no basis for refusing to close on the contract.