Ambalu v. Rosenthal

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ambalu v. Rosenthal

29 A.D.3d 499, 813 N.Y.S.2d 672

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 2, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 499 (Ambalu v. Rosenthal) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ambalu v. Rosenthal, 29 A.D.3d 499, 813 N.Y.S.2d 672 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 13, 2005, which denied her mo[500]*500tion for a preliminary injunction and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by evidence showing that they properly cancelled the contract of sale in accordance with paragraph 14 of the rider to the contract (see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 163 [1990]; Nesdale v Banister, 18 AD3d 841 [2005]; Eckel v Francis, 5 AD3d 719, 722 [2004]; Palmieri v Higgins, 302 AD2d 374 [2003]; Gartner v Young-Hee Lowe, 299 AD2d 198 [2002]). In response, the plaintiff failed to show the existence of a triable issue of fact requiring denial of the motion for summary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), dated May 13, 2005, which denied her mo[500]*500tion for a preliminary injunction and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint by evidence showing that they properly cancelled the contract of sale in accordance with paragraph 14 of the rider to the contract (see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 163 [1990]; Nesdale v Banister, 18 AD3d 841 [2005]; Eckel v Francis, 5 AD3d 719, 722 [2004]; Palmieri v Higgins, 302 AD2d 374 [2003]; Gartner v Young-Hee Lowe, 299 AD2d 198 [2002]). In response, the plaintiff failed to show the existence of a triable issue of fact requiring denial of the motion for summary judgment (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 499, 813 N.Y.S.2d 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ambalu-v-rosenthal-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack