YRSS's Client Wins on Appeal

YRSS was right on the law and on the facts and our client's rights were vindicated. In a published decision, the Appellate Term of the New York State Supreme Court, Second Department, confirmed that the law treats the sale of a mobile home as a sale of 'goods' under the Uniform Commercial Code ("U.C.C."). Under the U.C.C.  a seller's remedy for the intentional breach of a buyer, who backs out of a contract to purchase goods, is limited to twenty per cent of the value of the contract or $500, whichever is less, unless the parties agree otherwise.  While not represented by an attorney, our client paid a down payment to purchase a "house" in Florida that she intended to move to in her retirement. Further investigation revealed that the house was actually a mobile home, which was not what the client had bargained for. Our client immediately canceled the contract and demanded the immediate return of her down payment. The seller refused to return the down payment and instead treated the down payment as liquidated damages. YRSS commenced suit on behalf of the purchaser, and our attorney Peter E. Sverd, was disappointed when the trial judge dismissed the case after a bench trial.  YRSS appealed the decision and the Appellate Court got it right. Mrs. Santos got her money back, less the $500 that was provided for under the Uniform Commercial Code. See, Santos v DeBellis, 901 N.Y.S.2d 457 (N.Y.Supp.App. 2010).

YRSS Wins Dismissal of Lawsuit Against Manhattan Co-op

When the Co-op's commercial tenant sought court intervention to determine its rights to use the rear yard of the building to house and alter mechanical equipment, Peter Sverd was up to the task.  Mr. Sverd argued that the lawsuit was not ripe for adjudication and should, therefore, be dismissed without considering the merits of the plaintiff's case.  The Court  agreed, finding that  a letter from the Co-op's attorney and an oral statement of its Vice President to the plaintiffs was not tantamount to official Board action 'denying the plans' which was required under the plaintiff's lease.  "Knowledge of the law and attention to every fact of the case revealed that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place. Any bargaining power that the plaintiffs thought they had brought to bare by bringing this lawsuit, turned out to be an illusion." Said Mr. Sverd.  The Court dismissed the case and awarded costs and disbursements to the plaintiffs.

The case is 100 Wooster Store Corp. v Wooster 100 Realty LTD. Index No.: 111692/2010