Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Princes Point L.L.C. v. Muss Development L.L.C.
New York Court of Appeals
87 N.E.3d 121, 30 N.Y.3d 127 (2017)
An anticipatory repudiation is a breach of contract that occurs before the time of actual performance is due. In Princes Point versus Muss Development, New York's highest court considered whether commencing a lawsuit constitutes an anticipatory repudiation.
Princes Point LLC contracted with Allied Princes Bay Company to purchase waterfront property on Staten Island. The party's contract required Allied to deliver certain government approvals necessary to develop the property.
If the approvals couldn't be obtained by the agreed upon closing date, then either party could terminate the agreement.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation noted several flaws in the property's waterfront retaining wall and required Allied to remedy those defects.
As a result, Allied was unable to obtain the required approvals by the agreed upon closing date.
Allied advised Princes Point that it intended to exercise its rights to terminate the party's agreement, unless Prince's Point agreed to several contractual amendments.
Princes Point agreed to increase the purchase price and down payment, share the costs of remediation, and extend the outside closing date. However, about a month before the final closing date, Princes Point sued Allied and its affiliates, including Muss Development, seeking specific performance of the party's original contract, on the grounds that Allied misrepresented its ability to complete the remedial work.
Allied moved for summary judgment, arguing that Princes Point materially breached the party's contract by failing to close. The trial court agreed and granted Allied's motion.
The appellate court affirmed, holding that Princes Point's commencement of suit before the date of performance constituted an anticipatory repudiation.
Princes Point appealed to New York's highest court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/princes-point-l-l-c-v-muss-development-l-l-c
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/princes-point-l-l-c-v-muss-development-l-l-c
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Princes Point L.L.C. v. Muss Development L.L.C.
New York Court of Appeals
87 N.E.3d 121, 30 N.Y.3d 127 (2017)
An anticipatory repudiation is a breach of contract that occurs before the time of actual performance is due. In Princes Point versus Muss Development, New York's highest court considered whether commencing a lawsuit constitutes an anticipatory repudiation.
Princes Point LLC contracted with Allied Princes Bay Company to purchase waterfront property on Staten Island. The party's contract required Allied to deliver certain government approvals necessary to develop the property.
If the approvals couldn't be obtained by the agreed upon closing date, then either party could terminate the agreement.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation noted several flaws in the property's waterfront retaining wall and required Allied to remedy those defects.
As a result, Allied was unable to obtain the required approvals by the agreed upon closing date.
Allied advised Princes Point that it intended to exercise its rights to terminate the party's agreement, unless Prince's Point agreed to several contractual amendments.
Princes Point agreed to increase the purchase price and down payment, share the costs of remediation, and extend the outside closing date. However, about a month before the final closing date, Princes Point sued Allied and its affiliates, including Muss Development, seeking specific performance of the party's original contract, on the grounds that Allied misrepresented its ability to complete the remedial work.
Allied moved for summary judgment, arguing that Princes Point materially breached the party's contract by failing to close. The trial court agreed and granted Allied's motion.
The appellate court affirmed, holding that Princes Point's commencement of suit before the date of performance constituted an anticipatory repudiation.
Princes Point appealed to New York's highest court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/princes-point-l-l-c-v-muss-development-l-l-c
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/princes-point-l-l-c-v-muss-development-l-l-c
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
