In this case, David Preminger is the plaintiff. The Jamaica Estates Holding Corporation is the defendant-appellant. Mark Labib et al. are third party plaintiffs-respondents. The Jamaica Estates Holding Corporation et al. are third party defendant-appellants, while Schrier Fiscella and Sussman, LLC is another third-party defendant.
On May 16th of 2008, the Supreme Court of New York County issued an order regarding a real-estate contract. A New York Probate Lawyer this granted the request that had been made by David Preminger for a summary judgement. He had requested that the real-estate contract be closed within 60 days of the Supreme Court issuing its conclusion. Jamaica Estates made a counter-motion which requested that this claim be dismissed, but the counter-motion was denied.
Around April 2008, another order was entered by the Supreme Court. This order granted the request made by the Labibs. The Labibs requested summary judgements against Jamaica Estates as well. This was in regard to a later contract regarding the sale of the same property. The Labibs made a claim for damages because they had made a deposit which was held in escrow by a law firm. A New York City Probate Lawyer said this was ordered released with interest on top of the fee within 10 days of the order. Finally, it was required that the funds generated from the deal between Jamaica Estates and Mr. Preminger be held until the court issued another order. This was all so ordered.
A great deal of documentary evidence was submitted in order to verify the claims. The Premingers and Labibs both submitted very similar paperwork in order to prove the rightness of their respective claims. A Long Island Probate Lawyer said the contracts of sale were provided, as well as replicas of the original down payment checks. Several letters were also provided. The Jamaica Estates’ lawyers wrote letters which cancelled both contracts, and these were submitted, as were letters from the representation of both Preminger and the Labibs. These letters were sent to Jamaica Estates and objected to the termination of the original purchasing contracts, and asserted the rights of the buyers under the terms of those initial agreements. This also established the basis for the claim that Jamaica Estates should be found to have breached their contracts.
Jamaica Estates asserted that the original contracts gave it the right to unilaterally cancel the contract if any liens on the property couldn’t be removed within an acceptable amount of time when compared to the anticipated closing date of the deal. This was not the case. The contracts actually offered the option to the buyer in this situation. The buyer had the option to buy the property even when the title was not completely free and clear, as long as any proceeds from the sale went towards freeing it from any obligations held currently against it.
Jamaica Estates also made another argument regarding insurance on the property. It claimed that both of the plaintiffs were required to acquire an affidavit from an insurance company. Jamaica Estates claims that this was to prove that the property would have qualified for insurance if the deal had closed successfully. However, this was unnecessary, because the proceeds of the sale under the terms of the original contract would have provided easily enough funds to remove any obligations that were levied against the property.
Jamaica Estate’s movement to dismiss the claim against them was denied.
Stephen Bilkis & Associates offers legal services throughout the metropolitan area of Manhattan. If you find yourself in need of legal advice, whether you have an estate litigation issue, a probate dispute or a will contest, you may contact one of our offices to set up an appointment for your free consultation. Our lawyers will help you determine what your best course of legal action will be based on your current situation.