Opinion
2002-06935
Argued September 26, 2003.
November 3, 2003.
In an action, inter alia, to compel specific performance of an option to purchase certain real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated June 18, 2002, which granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied its cross motion, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Kossoff, Alper Unger, New York, N.Y. (Edward Paul Alper of counsel), for appellant.
Mishaan, Dayon Leiblich, New York, N.Y. (Kenneth M. Lieblich and Saul A. Mishaan of counsel), for respondent.
Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., STEPHEN G. CRANE, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A party moving for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, offering sufficient evidence to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). Here, the plaintiff demonstrated its entitlement to exercise the option to purchase the subject building under the sublease. The reinstatement of the plaintiff's corporate status nunc pro tunc retroactively validated the option ( see St. James Constr. Corp. v. Long, 253 A.D.2d 754, 755-756; Lorisa Capital Corp. v. Gallo, 119 A.D.2d 99, 111-113). Therefore, the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for summary judgment ( see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851; Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra). In opposition, the defendant failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SMITH, J.P., CRANE, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.