Legal Opinion

RBP Ventures, Ltd. v. Concord Electronics, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 28, 2010Published

1Opinion of the Court

Flaintiff failed to preserve its argument that defendant *536breached the parties’ contract by not providing the certificates required by sections 4.24 and 9.08 at the closing (see e.g. Omansky v Whitacre, 55 AD3d 373, 374 [2008]; 220-52 Assoc. v Edelman, 18 AD3d 313, 315 [2005]).

Even if plaintiff believed that defendant had anticipatorily breached the contract, it was still required “to show that it was ready and able to perform its own contractual undertakings on the closing date, in order to secure specific performance” (Huntington Min. Holdings v Cottontail Plaza, 60 NY2d 997, 998 [1983]).…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Huntington Mining Holdings, Inc. v. Cottontail Plaza, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. Fridman v. KucherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
  3. Uzan v. 845 UN Ltd. PartnershipAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  4. Omansky v. WhitacreAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  5. 220-52 Associates v. EdelmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API