Legal Opinion
Zev v. Merman
New York Court of Appeals
Decided November 29, 1988PublishedCited by 112 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*783OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
What constitutes a reasonable time for performance depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case (see, Ballen v Potter, 251 NY 224; Murray Co. v Lidgerwood Mfg. Co., 241 NY 455, 459). Included within a court’s determination of reasonableness are the nature and object of the contract, the previous conduct of the parties, the presence or absence of good faith, the experience of the parties and the possibility of prejudice or hardship to either one, as well as the specific number…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ballen v. PotterNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
- A. B. Murray Co. v. Lidgerwood Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
- 76 North Associates v. Theil Management Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
- Schoen v. GrossmanNew York Supreme Court · 1962
- Schoen v. GrossmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962
3Cited by112 opinions
- Savasta v. 470 Newport AssociatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1993
- ADC Orange, Inc. v. Coyote Acres, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2006
- Alaska Textile Co., Inc. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
- RCN Telecom Services, Inc. v. 202 Centre Street Realty LLCCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- 3M Holding Corp. v. WagnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990
107 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.