In a recent decision, the Supreme Court, Albany County, ruled that a purchaser properly cancelled a residential real estate contract, entitling him to the return of his deposit.  The purchaser was represented in the suit by Christopher P. Langlois, Esq.

     Following an unfavorable structural inspection, the purchaser gave notice to the seller of his intention to cancel the real estate contract.  The seller refused to return the purchaser’s deposit, however, claiming that there were no valid grounds to cancel the contract and, in any event, that the notice of cancellation was not provided within the time limits provided in the contract.   In response to the purchaser’s suit to recover his deposit, the seller brought a counterclaim seeking damages arising from the purchaser’s alleged breach of contract in failing to complete the purchase and sale.

      On motions for summary judgment, the Court ruled that the unfavorable structural inspection provided a valid basis for the purchaser to cancel the contract, and that the notice of cancellation was timely provided to the seller.  The Court therefore awarded the purchaser the return of his deposit, and dismissed the seller’s counterclaim for damages against the purchaser.

On July 2, 2009, the Appellate Division, Third Department, issued a Memorandum of Judgment confirming a determination made by the Village of Saranac Lake Board of Trustees which terminated the employment of its Chief of Police following a disciplinary hearing held pursuant to Section 75 of the Civil Service Law.  The Village was represented on the appeal by Christopher P. Langlois, Esq.

The disciplinary charges arose from an alcohol-related motor vehicle accident involving two Village police officers.  Following a Section 75 hearing, the appointed Hearing Officer issued a Report and Recommendation finding the Chief of Police guilty of misconduct in connection with his investigation and handling of the incident, and recommending his termination.  Following the Board’s adoption of the Hearing Officer’s Report and termination of his employment, the Chief of Police brought an Article 78 proceeding challenging his termination, seeking reinstatement and an award of back pay.

In confirming the Village’s determination, the Third Department rejected the Chief’s argument that the Village Board had failed to properly designate the Hearing Officer in accordance with the requirements of Section 75.  The Third Department also found that substantial evidence in the hearing record supported the Board’s determination that the Chief of Police had, in fact, engaged in the acts of misconduct alleged.