Popular Topics
All Topics
- 5 Pointz
- Advertising
- Advertising Law
- affordable housing
- AirBNB Lawsuit
- ALTA
- ALTA ACSM Standards
- Assemblages
- Bloomberg BNA
- Breach
- Broker-LawyerRelationship
- Broker’s license
- Building Loan Soft Costs
- Certified B corporation
- checklist
- Climate Change
- Commercial Condo
- Commercial Tenant Harassment Law
- commerical real estate
- Condo Developers
- condominium
- condos
- Contract
- Copyright, Trademark and Other Intellectual Property
- Corporate social responsibility
- Court Decisions
- Crowdfunding
- Crowdfunding Rules
- CSR
- Delaware Good Faith
- Dodd-Frank Act
- environment, social and governance
- ESG
- FinCEN
- Fraud
- ground leases
- Inequitable Conduct
- Insurance Company
- Intellectual Property
- Internal Revenue Code
- ISLA
- Jennifer Plan
- Job Act Rules
- Joint Venture Agreements
- leasehold condominiums
- Limited Liability
- Limited Partnerships
- LLC
- LLC Agreement
- LLC Agreement Questions
- LLC Checklist
- LLC Mergers
- LLC taxation
- Loan Agreements
- Mom and Pop Tenants
- Mortgage Subordination
- mortgages
- New York
- New York Attorney General
- New York City Council
- New York City Surveys
- New York Real Estate Journal
- Non-profit Organization
- NY Attorney General
- NY Real Estate in 2016
- NY Real Estate in 2018
- NYREJ
- NYS Land Surveyors Association
- NYS Lien Law
- Offering Plan
- online database listing
- opportunity zones
- Passive Investors
- Public benefit corporation
- Public Policy
- Purchase Contracts
- quality control
- Real Estate
- Real Estate Development Company
- Real Estate Financing Bureau
- Real Estate Litigation
- Real Estate LLC Agreements
- Real Estate Taxes
- Real Property Tax (RPT)
- Real-estate-advertising
- retail lease
- Rights of First Refusal
- ROFRs
- Sales
- Sales Tax
- section 1031 exchanges
- Securities & Exchange Commission
- Sellers
- Sole Discretion
- Specific Disclaimers
- Tax
- tax escalation clause enforcement
- tenancies in common
- TRIA
- VARA
- Visual Artists Rights Act
- Visual Examinations
- “High Volatility” (HVCRE) loans
Recent Posts
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Mortgage Break-Up Fees
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Creating Social Responsibility LLCs
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns and Bryan Anderson on Carefully Drafting ROFRs
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on NYC’s Climate Mobilization Act
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Using LLCs for Succession Planning
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Top Legal Developments of 2018 in NY Real Estate
- NYREJ Publishes a Review of 2018 by Thomas Kearns
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Affordable Housing Solutions
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on Commercial Leasehold Condominiums
- NYREJ Publishes Article by Thomas Kearns on the Complications of Ground Leases and Assemblages
Archives
- December 2019
- September 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- September 2018
- July 2018
Contact Us
Thomas D. Kearns
tkearns@olshanlaw.com
@TDKearns
212.451.2273
May A Sponsor Intentionally Delay a Condo Unit Closing?
The following article was published in the September 23-26 issue of New York Real Estate Journal.
Full article content reprinted with permission below. To view on the New York Real Estate Journal site, please click here.
A recent New York Supreme Court opinion tackled a unique claim by a purchaser of a residential condominium unit - may a purchaser obtain damages for an alleged intentional delay in completing his unit? Most sponsors, of course, want to close quickly but this purchaser alleged that his seller did not have a construction loan to pay down and was unhappy with the price set forth in the original purchase agreement. After much back and forth, the seller ultimately closed and the purchaser sued for damages post-closing. The original press reports about the decision played up the plaintiff's status as a partner in a major New York law firm leading to the typical "only a lawyer..." thought. However upon reading the thoughtful and unusually detailed court decision in Hurley v. Watanabe, the dispute raises an interesting issue - may a sponsor intentionally delay completion of a project to try to force a buyer to exercise a right to terminate the now below market contract? The court held that the plaintiff has the right to try to prove his case with respect to certain damages.
The plaintiff signed the contract in December of 2012 when the unit was virtually complete. The sales agents advised that the unit was "basically finished" and that a temporary certificate of occupancy was "imminent" permitting a closing "very soon," perhaps as early as January of 2013. However, evidence showed that work had slowed. The sponsor quickly advised that construction was a "few weeks behind" and predicting a mid February 2013 closing. With no closing by April of 2013, the purchaser started writing complaint letters. The TCO was ultimately issued September 6, 2013 and the sale closed October 16, 2013. But in the meantime the purchaser's interest rate on his financing had increased causing plaintiff to sue for damages including those arising due to the higher rate and for interim living costs. During this period the sponsor had offered to let the purchaser rescind his contract. The offering plan for the building estimated a closing on or about July 1, 2012 but various disclosures in the plan warned of the possibility of delay, although the plan required the sponsor to proceed "diligently and expeditiously to complete construction."
The sponsor moved for dismissal of the complaint. Procedurally the court had to assume that the allegations that the sponsor intentionally delayed the closing were true. The court issued a split decision knocking out the claims relating to the increase in the purchaser's interest rate in part due to various plan disclaimers relating to the potential increase in the cost of mortgage financing. The court, however, let survive the purchaser's claim for additional living costs, assuming the plaintiff could prove an intentional delay. The rest of the complaint was dismissed. So the answer in this court's opinion is, yes, a sponsor may be liable for damages for an intentional breach of contract by failing to diligently pursue completion and closing of a unit although damages may be limited.
Tom Kearns is a partner at Olshan Frome Wolosky, New York, N.Y.