Chowdhury v. Soroka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chowdhury v. Soroka

16 A.D.3d 613, 791 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3288

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 A.D.3d 613 (Chowdhury v. Soroka) 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

Chowdhury v. Soroka, 16 A.D.3d 613, 791 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3288 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to compel specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the defendant Irene Soroka appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), entered May 10, 2004, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment to the extent of directing her to appear and close title pursuant to the contract of sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In response to the plaintiffs showing of his entitlement to summary judgment directing the specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the appellant failed to show the existence of a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]; Moutafis v Osborne, 7 AD3d 686 [2004]; S.J.K. Realtors Inc. v Matlock, 306 AD2d 396 [2003]). She also failed to show that the motion should be denied as premature pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion to the extent of directing the appellant to appear and close title pursuant to the contract of sale.

In light of this determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, to compel specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the defendant Irene Soroka appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorsa, J.), entered May 10, 2004, as granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment to the extent of directing her to appear and close title pursuant to the contract of sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

In response to the plaintiffs showing of his entitlement to summary judgment directing the specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the appellant failed to show the existence of a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]; Moutafis v Osborne, 7 AD3d 686 [2004]; S.J.K. Realtors Inc. v Matlock, 306 AD2d 396 [2003]). She also failed to show that the motion should be denied as premature pursuant to CPLR 3212 (f). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion to the extent of directing the appellant to appear and close title pursuant to the contract of sale.

In light of this determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.3d 613, 791 N.Y.S.2d 452, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chowdhury-v-soroka-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack