Cohen v. Kranz
New York Court of Appeals
189 N.E.2d 473 (1963)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Sara Cohen (plaintiff) contracted to purchase a home owned by the Kranzes (defendants), putting down $4,000 at the signing of the contract. A closing date of December 15 was established. On November 30, Cohen’s attorney sent a letter to the Kranzes asserting that title to the property was unmarketable because of unspecified faults with the premises. He demanded that the Kranzes pay Cohen or risk legal proceedings. On December 15, Cohen’s attorney demanded return of Cohen’s down payment. The Kranzes refused. Neither party proceeded with the requirements to close. Cohen filed suit against the Kranzes for return of her deposit and the cost of the title search. The Kranzes countersued for breach of contract. They then sold the property at a lower price to a different buyer. Not until the lawsuit was filed were the specific objections to the Kranzes’ title disclosed: the swimming pool lacked a certificate of occupancy, and a fence extended beyond the front property line. The trial court found in favor of Cohen, and the Kranzes appealed. The New York Appellate Division reversed the trial court judgment, and Cohen appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Burke, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
