Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Sol KNOPFF, appellant, v. Hugh JOHNSON, respondent.
In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (F. Rivera, J.), dated September 30, 2004, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.
The proponent of a motion for summary judgment must make a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by offering sufficient evidence to remove any triable issues of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572). Absent such a showing, the motion will be denied, irrespective of the sufficiency of the opposing proof (see generally Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642; Golfo v. Kycia Assoc., Inc., 15 A.D.3d 540, 541, 791 N.Y.S.2d 577).
The defendant failed to demonstrate the absence of a triable issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to close in accordance with the fully-executed real estate contract dated May 15, 2003 (see Kistela v. Ahlers, 22 A.D.3d 641, 802 N.Y.S.2d 729). The papers submitted in support of its motion show the existence of triable issues of fact as to whether the communications and correspondence between the parties after the execution of the contract constituted a counter-offer that was expressly rejected by the defendant (cf. Winiarski v. Duryea Assocs., LLC, 14 A.D.3d 697, 698, 789 N.Y.S.2d 510), or a repudiation by the plaintiff of the original contract (cf. G.G.F. Props. v. Yu Mi Hong, 284 A.D.2d 427, 726 N.Y.S.2d 454). Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendant's motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: May 16, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)