Tsabari v. Haye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tsabari v. Haye

13 A.D.3d 360, 786 N.Y.S.2d 102, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14837

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

DecidedDecember 6, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 360 (Tsabari v. Haye) 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

Tsabari v. Haye, 13 A.D.3d 360, 786 N.Y.S.2d 102, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated October 24, 2003, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action for specific performance.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action for specific performance is denied.

A purchaser who seeks specific performance of a real estate contract must demonstrate that he or she was ready, willing, and able to perform the contract (see Internet Homes, Inc. v Vitulli, 8 AD3d 438 [2004]; Moutafis v Osborne, 7 AD3d 686 [2004]; City Ownership v Giambrone, 5 AD3d 529 [2004]; Ferrone v Tupper, 304 AD2d 524 [2003]). Here, the plaintiff failed to adequately substantiate his assertion that he had the financial capacity to purchase the property on the scheduled closing date (see Internet Homes, Inc. v Vitulli, supra; Ferrone v Tupper, supra; Madison Invs. v Cohoes Assoc., 176 AD2d 1021 [1991]; Contro v White, 176 AD2d 1052 [1991]). Moreover, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that he tendered his performance, or that tender was excused under the circumstances of this case (see City Ownership v Giambrone, supra; 28 Props, v Akleh Realty Corp., 309 AD2d 632 [2003]; see also Madison Invs. v Cohoes Assoc., supra). Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, [361]*361and that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action for specific performance should have been denied. H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Cozier and Spolzino, 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 defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated October 24, 2003, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action for specific performance.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action for specific performance is denied.

A purchaser who seeks specific performance of a real estate contract must demonstrate that he or she was ready, willing, and able to perform the contract (see Internet Homes, Inc. v Vitulli, 8 AD3d 438 [2004]; Moutafis v Osborne, 7 AD3d 686 [2004]; City Ownership v Giambrone, 5 AD3d 529 [2004]; Ferrone v Tupper, 304 AD2d 524 [2003]). Here, the plaintiff failed to adequately substantiate his assertion that he had the financial capacity to purchase the property on the scheduled closing date (see Internet Homes, Inc. v Vitulli, supra; Ferrone v Tupper, supra; Madison Invs. v Cohoes Assoc., 176 AD2d 1021 [1991]; Contro v White, 176 AD2d 1052 [1991]). Moreover, the plaintiff did not demonstrate that he tendered his performance, or that tender was excused under the circumstances of this case (see City Ownership v Giambrone, supra; 28 Props, v Akleh Realty Corp., 309 AD2d 632 [2003]; see also Madison Invs. v Cohoes Assoc., supra). Accordingly, the plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, [361]*361and that branch of his motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action for specific performance should have been denied. H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Cozier and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 360, 786 N.Y.S.2d 102, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tsabari-v-haye-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack