Zahner v. Uram

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: We conclude, from our review of the contract for the sale of realty, that there was consideration for the $7,000 nonrefundable deposit. It is apparent that the additional deposit was an inducement for defendants to permit plaintiff to have occupancy of the house prior to closing. Thus, plaintiff was not entitled to recover that "nonrefundable” earnest money deposit when the contract, by its terms, became null and void.

Supreme Court did not address defendants’ motion to…