▶ Video explainer coming soon
The appeals court agreed with the trial court. It found the seller proved it gave all requested due diligence information on time. The buyer's claims about incomplete or late responses were inconsistent and not backed up by evidence. The court also said even if there was a problem, the buyer never gave the seller notice and a chance to fix it first, as the contract required. This alone was enough to dismiss the case. The court also upheld the attorneys' fees awarded to the seller, since the seller had shown its legal costs were reasonable and the buyer didn't challenge that evidence.
Safka Holdings wanted to buy a property from 220 West 57th Street Limited Partnership. Before the sale could close, Safka claimed the seller failed to provide proper due diligence information. Safka said the answers were either incomplete or came too late. The seller disagreed, saying it gave Safka everything it needed on time. When the deal fell through, Safka sued for breach of contract. The seller fought back, filing its own claim for attorneys' fees under the contract. The case went to trial court first, where a judge sided with the seller and ordered Safka to pay over $128,000.
Did the seller actually fail to meet its contract duties by giving incomplete or late due diligence information? And even if it did, could the buyer sue without first giving the seller a chance to fix the problem? The contract required notice and an opportunity to cure any issues before a lawsuit.
This case shows why following contract steps matters, not just having a complaint. Courts often require parties to give notice and a chance to cure problems before suing. It also shows that vague or inconsistent claims won't defeat a strong, well-documented defense. Real estate contracts often include these procedural requirements for a reason.
Talk to a licensed real estate lawyer in New York.