Summary
affirming denial of summary judgment on cause of action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property
Summary of this case from Camelot Si, LLC v. ThreeSixty Brands Grp.Opinion
2003-00974.
Decided March 15, 2004.
In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated December 2, 2002, as, in effect, denied its motion for summary judgment on its cause of action for specific performance.
Borchert, Genovesi, LaSpina, Landicino, P.C., Whitestone, N.Y. (Helmut Borchert of counsel), for appellant.
Michael J. Petersen, Brooklyn, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P. HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff purchaser failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on its cause of action for specific performance directing the defendant seller to convey the subject property to it. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant attended the closing. Further, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was ready, willing, and able to close on the law day ( see Zelmanovitch v. Ramos, 299 A.D.2d 353, 354; Johnson v. Phelan, 281 A.D.2d 394, 395; Goller Place Corp. v. Cacase, 251 A.D.2d 287). Therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on its cause of action for specific performance, regardless of whether the defendant was able to convey the property in accordance with the terms of the contract ( see Zelmanovitch v. Ramos, supra; Goller Place Corp. v. Cacase, supra).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., H. MILLER, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.