From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Feeley v. Midas Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 1995
221 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

November 6, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified by deleting therefrom the provision which failed to vacate the provision of the judgment dated December 8, 1993, which reduced the amount to be paid by the plaintiffs at the scheduled closing by the amount of rent which had been paid by the plaintiffs, and substituting therefor a provision vacating that provision of the judgment; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Putnam County, for the settlement of a new judgment, on notice, in accordance herewith.

In its judgment directing specific performance, the Supreme Court ordered the reduction of the purchase price by $391,040.50, reflecting rents paid by the plaintiffs through June of 1993. The court also stated, in its judgment, that "if plaintiffs have made any payments as and for rent after July, 1993, they shall receive an equivalent credit". We agree with the argument advanced by the defendants on appeal to the effect that the plaintiffs, having failed to offer to pay interest on the purchase price which they retained from the date of the defendants' default, are not entitled to a credit for rents (see, Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry Warren Corp., 196 A.D.2d 564, 568; Perfetto v Scime, 182 A.D.2d 1126, 1127). Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for a recalculation of the amount to be paid by the plaintiffs at the time of closing.

The remaining issues raised on the present appeal could have been reviewed in connection with the defendants' appeal from the prior judgment. The dismissal of that appeal for want of prosecution was an adjudication on the merits with respect to all issues which could have been reviewed therein, and the defendants are therefore precluded from obtaining appellate review of these issues at this time (see, Bray v Cox, 38 N.Y.2d 350, 355; Montalvo v Nel Taxi Corp., 114 A.D.2d 494). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Feeley v. Midas Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 6, 1995
221 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Feeley v. Midas Properties, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:EUGENE FEELEY et al., Respondents, v. MIDAS PROPERTIES, INC., et al.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 6, 1995

Citations

221 A.D.2d 314 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
633 N.Y.S.2d 385

Citing Cases

Tepper v. Furino

The order dated September 20, 1995, which granted reargument, and upon reargument, adhered to the prior…

Routgauzer v. 346 21st Street, LLC

The plaintiff's complaint and the conduct of the hearing indicate that the order of reference, although…