Purchase/Sale of New Construction Home—Purchaser Defaulted—Seller Properly Cancelled Contract—Seller’s Attorney Voluntarily Agreed to Follow Martin Act Escrow Rules Although Sale Not Covered by Martin Act and Then Released Escrow in Violation of Such Rules and Before Cure Period Expired—Time of the Essence—Purchaser Did Not Have Right to Structural Inspection and Contract Was Not Subject to Structural Inspection—Although Attorney Committed a “Fraudulent Practice” Under Martin Act, There Is No Private Right of Action Under the Act—Attorney Seemingly Cut and Pasted the Escrow Provision From Another Contract Without Fully Comprehending the Significance of the Provision—Court Believed “Neither Counsel Bothered Reading the Contract”
Plaintiff purchasers sued the defendant seller and the seller’s attorney, alleging that the defendants had failed to return a deposit given in connection with the purchase/sale of a home. Although the matter was scheduled for trial, the court concluded that issues of law “would be dispositive.”
