Decatur (2004) Realty, LLC v. Cruz

30 A.D.3d 367, 815 N.Y.S.2d 485
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 6, 2006·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action to compel specific performance of a contract to purchase real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated July 5, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, they failed to show that they properly demanded performance of a contract to purchase real property on a specific day (see Cave v Kollar, 296 AD2d 370 [2002]). They also failed to show that they had the requisite ability to perform the contract (Paglia v Pisanello, 15 AD3d 373 [2005]). Thus, the plaintiffs failed to make out their prima facie case showing their entitlement to summary judgment on their cause of action to compel specific performance and denial of their motion was proper (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]).

In light of this determination we need not reach the plaintiffs’ remaining contentions. Florio, J.E, Adams, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Decatur (2004) Realty, LLC v. Cruz, 30 A.D.3d 367, 815 N.Y.S.2d 485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

30 A.D.3d 367 (Decatur (2004) Realty, LLC v. Cruz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lifshitz v. Wilhelm
2024 NY Slip Op 32565(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Chemtob v. Il Padrone Construction II, LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 2964 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Zeitoune v. Cohen
66 A.D.3d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Weiss v. Feldbrand
50 A.D.3d 673 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)