A New York buyer who offered $550,000 in cash for a severely damaged Bronx home later demanded a $270,000 price reduction and sued for $1 million when the seller refused. On November 5, 2026, the Appellate Division, First Department upheld the dismissal of Vedat Rexhepi’s lawsuit against Astoria Park Realty LLC, ruling that the buyer had knowingly agreed to purchase the unsafe property in an as-is transaction and could not use a later damage claim to escape the deal, as per a report on Justia U.S. Law.The dispute began with a property that had already been badly damaged by a fallen tree in March 2018. The New York City Department of Buildings issued an unsafe building violation, and the eventual sale listing disclosed unsafe conditions caused by water damage from the fallen tree. The buyer’s claim that he was entitled to a major discount was rejected because the contract, disclosures and photographs showed he understood exactly what he was buying. Read more about it here:
A home sold with warnings
When the Bronx property was listed for sale, the listing did not hide its condition. It expressly disclosed unsafe conditions due to water damage from a fallen tree, stated that the property would be sold as is, prohibited interior access, and required cash-only offers supported by proof of funds.In February 2024, Vedat Rexhepi offered $550,000 for the property. His written letter of intent acknowledged that the offer was as is, without inspection and for cash. The memorandum of sale also stated that no inspection would take place because the home was deemed unsafe.The seller’s broker provided interior photographs showing extensive damage and unsafe conditions. The buyer then signed a purchase contract that same month, after being given a clear picture of the property’s condition before committing to the deal.
What the contract said
The contract contained an important provision about who bore the risk if the property’s condition changed before closing. Its preamble included a standard disclaimer stating that, absent a contrary contractual provision, General Obligations Law section 5-1311 would govern casualty loss occurring before closing.Paragraph 12 went further. It expressly acknowledged that the buyer was aware of the property’s physical condition and required him to accept it as is, subject only to reasonable use, wear, tear and natural deterioration between contract and closing. It also stated that there would be no reduction in the purchase price or claim of any kind for any change in the property’s condition.The buyer paid a $55,000 down payment, which was held in escrow by the seller’s attorney. By agreement, that money was later applied toward water charges discovered during the title search.
The demand for $270,000
By October 2024, the seller was trying to schedule the closing, but the buyer’s lawyer said he needed more time to secure funds. The seller set a time-of-the-essence closing for December 3, 2024, and the parties twice agreed to postpone it, ultimately rescheduling for January 28, 2025.Five days before the closing, the buyer, now represented by new counsel, demanded a $270,000 reduction in the purchase price. He relied on General Obligations Law section 5-1311, claiming that he had seen new damage through a window during the preceding week and that the damage exceeded normal wear, tear and natural deterioration.He estimated repairs at $270,000, but the court noted that the claim was unsupported by an engineering report, contractor estimate or other documentation. The seller rejected the demand, saying the conditions described were the same unsafe and deteriorated conditions disclosed before the contract was signed. The buyer then failed to appear at the January 28 closing and did not tender the remaining balance.
The $1 million lawsuit
After the failed closing, the buyer sued for breach of contract. He sought specific performance with a $270,000 purchase-price reduction, or alternatively $1 million in damages. He also filed a notice of pendency against the property, a legal step often used in real estate disputes to put third parties on notice of a claimed interest.The seller moved to dismiss the complaint based on the contract, property listings, precontract photographs, correspondence and evidence of the failed closing. The seller also submitted affidavits from its managing member and broker stating that the alleged damage predated the contract.The Bronx trial court dismissed the case. On Nov. 5, 2026, the First Department unanimously affirmed that dismissal.
Why the buyer’s claim failed
Representative image
The appellate court said the buyer had expressly waived inspection before signing the contract. That meant his allegations about the property’s precontract interior condition were speculative and not based on firsthand knowledge, and the court was not required to accept them.The documentary evidence was also decisive. The listings, precontract photographs, correspondence and contractual disclosures showed that the buyer was fully aware of the property’s severely damaged and unsafe condition before agreeing to buy it. In the court’s view, those materials contradicted his claim that he had contracted to purchase a materially different property from the one the seller offered to convey.The buyer argued that General Obligations Law section 5-1311 entitled him to a reduction. That law allocates the risk of pre-closing loss, but only when the contract does not expressly allocate that risk. Here, paragraph 12 did exactly that, stating that the buyer would accept the property as is, subject to natural deterioration, without a price reduction or claim for any change in condition.
The limits of an as-is clause
The court was careful to note that an as-is clause does not automatically bar every claim under section 5-1311. But the facts mattered. The buyer knowingly accepted the risks of purchasing a severely damaged, unsafe property that he was not entitled to inspect.Even if the buyer was correct that the property suffered additional damage after the contract was signed, the court said his allegations did not show that the damage was a material casualty loss separate from the natural deterioration expected from the hazardous and unsafe conditions disclosed before the sale.In other words, the buyer could not invoke the statute as a way to obtain a substantial discount for risks he had already agreed to assume. The appellate court therefore upheld dismissal of the lawsuit and awarded costs to the seller.
A cautionary real estate lesson
The case shows why buyers should read every clause in a distressed-property contract, especially when a home is being sold as is and without interior access. A cash offer may speed up a transaction, but it does not remove the legal consequences of accepting a property in poor condition.It also demonstrates the value of documentation. The seller’s listings, photographs, disclosures and contract language gave the court a clear record of what the buyer knew before signing. When a buyer later sought a $270,000 reduction and $1 million in damages, that record proved fatal to the claim.
