Victory M, LLC v. Frederic

2017 NY Slip Op 2084, 148 A.D.3d 1086, 48 N.Y.S.3d 620
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 22, 2017
Docket2015-07753
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2084 (Victory M, LLC v. Frederic) 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
Victory M, LLC v. Frederic, 2017 NY Slip Op 2084, 148 A.D.3d 1086, 48 N.Y.S.3d 620 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silber, J.), dated July 7, 2015, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the sole cause of action, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, by demonstrating, inter alia, that it complied with its obligations under the subject contract for the sale of real property, and was ready, willing, and able to close (see Spira v Acceus, 114 AD3d 663 [2014]; Huang v Shih, 73 AD3d 981 [2010]; Backer v Bouza Falco Co., 28 AD3d 503 [2006]; Cheemanlall v Toolsee, 17 AD3d 392, 393 [2005]).

In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The defendant’s submissions, which included an affirmation by her counsel who had no personal knowledge of the facts surrounding the execution of the contract and was without evi-dentiary value, did not raise a triable issue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the complaint and denied the defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Austin, J.R, Miller, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Breskin v. Moronto
2019 NY Slip Op 4126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Finkelstein v. Lynda
2018 NY Slip Op 8116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 2084, 148 A.D.3d 1086, 48 N.Y.S.3d 620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/victory-m-llc-v-frederic-nyappdiv-2017.