Realty Equities, Inc. v. Walbaum, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Realty Equities, Inc. v. Walbaum, Inc.

18 A.D.3d 531, 795 N.Y.S.2d 312, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5039

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

DecidedMay 9, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 18 A.D.3d 531 (Realty Equities, Inc. v. Walbaum, Inc.) 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

Realty Equities, Inc. v. Walbaum, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 531, 795 N.Y.S.2d 312, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5039 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered June 4, 2004, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination in an order of the same court, (Barone, J.), entered June 24, 2003, granting the motion of the defendants Walbaum, Inc., also known as Waldbaum, Inc., and Brook-Vale Equities, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court, upon reargument, properly adhered to so much of the prior order entered June 24, 2003, as granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. A purchaser seeking specific performance of a real estate contract must demonstrate that he or she was ready, willing, and able to perform the contract (see Tsabari v Haye, 13 AD3d 360 [2004]; Internet Homes, Inc. v Vitulli, 8 AD3d 438, 439 [2004]; Moutafis v Osborne, 7 AD3d 686, 687 [2004]; City Ownership v Giambrone, 5 AD3d 529 [2004]; Johnson v Phelan, 281 AD2d 394, 395 [2001]). The respondents demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the plaintiff was unable or unwilling to close on April 10, 2003, the law day established in accordance with the terms of their contract, as modified by their subsequent written agree[532]*532ment (see Moutafis v Osborne, supra at 687; see also Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Krausman 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 so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered June 4, 2004, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination in an order of the same court, (Barone, J.), entered June 24, 2003, granting the motion of the defendants Walbaum, Inc., also known as Waldbaum, Inc., and Brook-Vale Equities, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court, upon reargument, properly adhered to so much of the prior order entered June 24, 2003, as granted that branch of the respondents’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. A purchaser seeking specific performance of a real estate contract must demonstrate that he or she was ready, willing, and able to perform the contract (see Tsabari v Haye, 13 AD3d 360 [2004]; Internet Homes, Inc. v Vitulli, 8 AD3d 438, 439 [2004]; Moutafis v Osborne, 7 AD3d 686, 687 [2004]; City Ownership v Giambrone, 5 AD3d 529 [2004]; Johnson v Phelan, 281 AD2d 394, 395 [2001]). The respondents demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by showing that the plaintiff was unable or unwilling to close on April 10, 2003, the law day established in accordance with the terms of their contract, as modified by their subsequent written agree[532]*532ment (see Moutafis v Osborne, supra at 687; see also Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Krausman and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.3d 531, 795 N.Y.S.2d 312, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5039, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/realty-equities-inc-v-walbaum-inc-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack