KARAMATZANIS v. COHEN

"A party need not state specifically that time is of the essence, as long as the notice specifies a time on which to close and warns that failure to close on that date will result in default" (Sohayegh v Oberlander, 155 A.D.2d 436, 438). Here, the notice sent by defendant's counsel to plaintiffs' counsel stating that defendant "will not consent to adjourn closing beyond 10/3/85 for any reason" was insufficient to render time of the essence, since there was no clear and unequivocal warning that failure to close on that date would be considered a default. Under these circumstances, defendant had no basis to refuse to close, and plaintiffs were properly awarded specific performance of the contract.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Kassal, JJ.