Chinatown Landowners Keep Their Property Despite Two Purported Written Contracts of Sale
When the Chins first came to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., they had what can accurately be described as double trouble. As owners of one of the very few When the Chins first came to Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., they had what can accurately be described as double trouble. As owners of one of the very few vacant lots in Chinatown, it was said they had contracted to sell their property to two separate people., it was said they had contracted to sell their property to two separate people.
Mrs. Chan had, over the course of a year, paid them $450,000 on account, pursuant to what she alleged was a contract to sell the property to her for just over a million dollars. During the period of time that the Chan sale failed to close, the Chins entered into a contract with Mr. Yang to sell him the same property and took a $50,000 down payment.
Both prospective purchasers sued to obtain specific performance.
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. moved to dismiss the complaint in the Yang case on the basis that the contract permitted its client to cancel the transaction; the trial court denied the firm’s motion, holding in part that the papers in the Yang and the Chan action, read together “raise[d] more questions than [they] answer.” Adam Leitman Bailey, PC, appealed on behalf of the Chins. After reviewing the firm’s papers below and its arguments on appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department reversed the trial court and directed the entry of judgment on behalf of the firm’s clients in the Yang case.
In the Chan case, there was a series of writings which the plaintiff asked the court to view as constituting a written contract. Additionally, Mr. Chin was a co-plaintiff in an action to quiet title to the property in which it was alleged that he was contractually bound to sell the property to Chan. The plaintiff moved twice for summary judgment. Each time, Adam Leitman Bailey, PC, was successful in defeating the motion and the court held the case over for trial. On the trial, the firm was able to successfully prove that the documents produced by the plaintiff and acknowledged to be accurate, even taken together and despite the $450,000 paid on account of the alleged contract, did not constitute a binding and enforceable commitment to sell to Chan. The Chins were granted judgment.
Colin E. Kaufman of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. represented the client in this matter. Colin E. Kaufman won the bench trial.
Content Related to the Chan v. Shew Foo Chin Case by Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.
-
Chan v. Shew Foo Chin Appellate Division
Chan v. Shew Foo Chin Appellate Division
Chan v Shew Foo Chin 2009 NY Slip Op 03771 Decided on May 12, 2009 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. Decided on May 12, 2009 Gonzalez, P.J., Catterson, Richter, Abdus-Salaam, JJ. 525 106692/05 [*1]Miriam Chan, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v Shew Foo Chin, et al., Defendants-Respondents. Hofheimer, Gartlir & Gross, LLP, New York (David...
Read More -
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Prevails at Trial in Invalidating Contract to Purchase Commercial Property
Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Prevails at Trial in Invalidating Contract to Purchase Commercial Property
Chan v. Chin, 106692/05 Decided: July 29, 2008 Justice Walter B. Tolub NEW YORK COUNTY Supreme Court Justice Tolub. Click here to see Judicial Profile Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law This matter was tried before this court on April 30, 2008, May 1, 2008, May 5, 2008 and May 6, 2008. This constitutes the court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT Defendant Shew Foo Chin owns title to the premises known as 79 Eldridge...
Read More -
Ying Qi Yang v. Shew Foo Chin, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department Decision
Ying Qi Yang v. Shew Foo Chin, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department Decision
839 N.Y.S.2d 90 42 A.D.3d 320, 839 N.Y.S.2d 90, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. (Cite as: 42 A.D.3d 320, 839 N.Y.S.2d 90) Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York. YING-QI YANG, Plaintiff-Respondent, v SHEW-FOO CHIN, Defendant-Appellant. July 5, 2007. Background: Intended purchaser brought action against intended seller for specific performance of the sale of real estate. The Supreme Court, New York County, Walter B. Tolub, J., denied seller’s motion to dismiss. Seller appealed. Holding: The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held...
Read More