Fanek v. Dutchess Properties, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fanek v. Dutchess Properties, LLC

34 A.D.3d 722, 825 N.Y.S.2d 124

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 A.D.3d 722 (Fanek v. Dutchess Properties, LLC) 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

Fanek v. Dutchess Properties, LLC, 34 A.D.3d 722, 825 N.Y.S.2d 124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to compel specific performance of an option to purchase real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated June 13, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to compel specific performance of a purchase option in a lease. However, in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, both that the lease had been terminated and that the purchase option had not been exercised in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease (see Raanan v Tom’s Triangle, 303 AD2d 668 [2003]; O’Rourke v Carlton, 286 AD2d 427 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Thus, the motion was properly granted. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Spolzino and Dillon, 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 an option to purchase real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated June 13, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to compel specific performance of a purchase option in a lease. However, in support of its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendant demonstrated, prima facie, both that the lease had been terminated and that the purchase option had not been exercised in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease (see Raanan v Tom’s Triangle, 303 AD2d 668 [2003]; O’Rourke v Carlton, 286 AD2d 427 [2001]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Thus, the motion was properly granted. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Spolzino and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 722, 825 N.Y.S.2d 124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fanek-v-dutchess-properties-llc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack