2814 Morris LLC v. Ortega

2025 NY Slip Op 05289

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: October 2, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 804221/21; Appeal No. 4818; Case No. 2025-01830
• Status: Published

Opinion

2814 Morris LLC v Ortega (2025 NY Slip Op 05289)

2814 Morris LLC v Ortega

2025 NY Slip Op 05289

Decided on October 02, 2025

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: October 02, 2025
Before: Moulton, J.P., Kennedy, González, Shulman, Rodriguez, JJ.

Index No. 804221/21|Appeal No. 4818|Case No. 2025-01830|

[*1]2814 Morris LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

Martin Ortega, Defendant-Respondent.

Ginsburg & Misk LLP, Queens Village (Anthony R. Jackson of counsel), for appellant.

Fryman PC, Valley Stream (Sarah Morrissey Ratner of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kim Adair Wilson, J.), entered on or about January 15, 2025, which denied plaintiff buyer's motion for summary judgment on its first cause of action for specific performance of its contract with defendant seller for the sale of certain real property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

"The elements of a cause of action for specific performance of a contract are that the plaintiff substantially performed its contractual obligations and was willing and able to perform its remaining obligations, that defendant was able to convey the property, and that there was no adequate remedy at law" (EMF Gen. Contr. Corp. v Bisbee, 6 AD3d 45, 51 [1st Dept 2004], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 656 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 607 [2004]). Here, triable issues of fact exist as to which party is truly at fault for the conceded delays in closing on the 2017 contract. Moreover, the protracted nature of this litigation raises dueling claims of severe prejudice that would result from a grant or denial of specific performance, especially when the market value of the property allegedly increased during the ensuing years (see Bisbee, 6 AD3d at 53). Thus, the motion court properly denied plaintiff partial summary judgment on its first cause of action.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: October 2, 2025