From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Decatur (2004) Realty, Llc. v. Cruz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 6, 2006
30 A.D.3d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

2005-07328.

June 6, 2006.

In an action to compel specific performance of a contract to purchase real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hinds-Radix, J.), dated July 5, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment.

Thomas Torto, New York, N.Y. (Jason Levine of counsel), for appellants.

Before: Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Fisher, JJ., concur.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, they failed to show that they properly demanded performance of a contract to purchase real property on a specific day ( see Cave v. Kollar, 296 AD2d 370). They also failed to show that they had the requisite ability to perform the contract ( Paglia v. Pisanello, 15 AD3d 373). Thus, the plaintiffs failed to make out their prima facie case showing their entitlement to summary judgment on their cause of action to compel specific performance and denial of their motion was proper ( see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324).

In light of this determination we need not reach the plaintiffs' remaining contentions.


Summaries of

Decatur (2004) Realty, Llc. v. Cruz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 6, 2006
30 A.D.3d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

Decatur (2004) Realty, Llc. v. Cruz

Case Details

Full title:DECATUR (2004) REALTY, LLC, et al., Appellants, v. MIRIAM CRUZ, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 6, 2006

Citations

30 A.D.3d 367 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 4380
815 N.Y.S.2d 485

Citing Cases

Zeitoune v. Cohen

Here, the purchasers submitted no proof that they were ready, willing, and able to fulfill their obligations…

Weiss v. Feldbrand

Here, the plaintiffs failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, as…