ROSEN
v.
CAIN ET AL.; CAIN ET AL. V. ROSEN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the condition precedent of board approval was met because the corporation was the appellant's alter ego, and the refusal to award counsel fees was not an abuse of discretion.
Appellees sued for specific performance of a contract to purchase a proprietary lease on an apartment. The appellant resisted, claiming a condition pr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Specific Performance Of Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellees in No. 11,947 sued for specific performance of a contract with the appellant by the terms of which the latter agreed to sell them a “proprietary lease” on a unit in a co-operative apartment house owned and operated by a corporation which he controlled.
Appellant resisted on the ground that a condition precedent — approval of the purchasers by the corporation’s directors — had not been met. It appeared, however, that, at or about the same time, he had sold to the female appellee a lease on an adjoining apartment without board approval. He said, “* * * I thought I knew enough of Mrs. Cain to approve her without the board *
The District Court correctly concluded that appellant’s defense was based on an insubstantial technicality. The corpora- ¿ion was his alter egó. The judgment decreeing specific performánce is affirmed.
The second appeal, No. 11,948, is from the trial court’s refusal to give the purchasers judgment against Rosen for their" counsel fee. We cannot say this refusal was an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed on both appeals.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Quinn v. Butz, 510 F.2d 743 (D.C. Cir. 1975)
-
Francis O. DAY Co., Inc. v. Shapiro, 267 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1959)