Sakizada v. GBR Realty, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sakizada v. GBR Realty, LLC

39 A.D.3d 619, 831 N.Y.S.2d 905

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

DecidedApril 10, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.3d 619 (Sakizada v. GBR Realty, 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

Sakizada v. GBR Realty, LLC, 39 A.D.3d 619, 831 N.Y.S.2d 905 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant GBR Realty, LLC, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered February 27, 2006, as denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied his cross motion for summary judgment directing specific performance of the contract, and the defendant Aron B. Borukhov also appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Aron B. Borukhov is dismissed as abandoned, without costs and disbursements (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]); and it is further,

[620]*620Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In response to the showing by the defendant GBR Realty, LLC, of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff demonstrated that there are issues of fact precluding the grant of summary judgment. In light of the plaintiffs failure to establish a prima facie case on his cross motion, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Klein v Opert, 218 AD2d 784, 785 [1995]; Adelman v Rackis, 212 AD2d 559, 560 [1995]). Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant GBR Realty, LLC, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Weiss, J.), entered February 27, 2006, as denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied his cross motion for summary judgment directing specific performance of the contract, and the defendant Aron B. Borukhov also appeals from the same order.

Ordered that the appeal by the defendant Aron B. Borukhov is dismissed as abandoned, without costs and disbursements (see 22 NYCRR 670.8 [e]); and it is further,

[620]*620Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In response to the showing by the defendant GBR Realty, LLC, of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff demonstrated that there are issues of fact precluding the grant of summary judgment. In light of the plaintiffs failure to establish a prima facie case on his cross motion, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Klein v Opert, 218 AD2d 784, 785 [1995]; Adelman v Rackis, 212 AD2d 559, 560 [1995]). Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Florio and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 619, 831 N.Y.S.2d 905, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sakizada-v-gbr-realty-llc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack