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.
KABRO PM, LLC, appellant, v. WGB MAIN STREET, LLC, et al., respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to compel the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered June 18, 2007, which denied its motion for summary judgment on the complaint and granted the defendants' separate cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
A party seeking specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property bears the burden of demonstrating that it was ready, willing, and able to perform its obligations under the contract (see Realty Equities, Inc. v. Walbaum, Inc., 18 A.D.3d 531, 795 N.Y.S.2d 312; Johnson v. Phelan, 281 A.D.2d 394, 395, 721 N.Y.S.2d 378; Huntington Min. Holdings v. Cottontail Plaza, 96 A.D.2d 526, 465 N.Y.S.2d 40, affd. 60 N.Y.2d 997, 471 N.Y.S.2d 267, 459 N.E.2d 492). Here, the Supreme Court properly found that the evidence unequivocally demonstrated that the plaintiff was not ready, willing, and able to perform its obligations under the contract. The plaintiff repeatedly refused to close on the contract unless the defendant WGB Main Street, LLC (hereinafter WGB) performed a full environmental cleanup of the premises. Moreover, the plaintiff waived the satisfaction of any unsatisfied condition when it exercised its right to “override” WGB's termination of the contract pursuant to section 3.2(d) of the contract. Thus, the plaintiff had no valid reason for refusing to close. After the defendants established, prima facie, their respective entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The Supreme Court, therefore, properly granted their respective motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against each of them (see generally Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718).
In view of the foregoing, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.
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: June 17, 2008
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)