Opinion
January 26, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In support of their motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff purchasers submitted proof in evidentiary form of the contract and its terms, their readiness, willingness and ability to perform on the law day and the defendant sellers' refusal to convey title pursuant to the contract. Thus, the plaintiffs sustained their burden by making a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, GTF Mktg. v Colonial Aluminum Sales, 66 N.Y.2d 965, 967; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 560; Hellyer v. Law Capitol, 124 A.D.2d 782; Kypreos v. Spiridellis, 124 A.D.2d 786), and the burden shifted to the defendants to "demonstrate by admissible evidence the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action" (Zuckerman v. City of New York, supra, at p 560; Kypreos v. Spiridellis, supra). The defendants proffered evidence in the form of their own affidavits, made upon personal knowledge, demonstrating the arguable existence of triable issues of fact relating to the validity of the contract. Although the plaintiffs contend that those allegations are unworthy of belief, a court may not resolve questions of credibility on a motion for summary judgment (see, Capelin Assoc. v. Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 N.Y.2d 338, 341; Johnson v. Michelin Tire Corp., 110 A.D.2d 824). "Issue-finding, and not issue-determination, is the focus of a motion for summary judgment" (Port Refinery Co. v. Firman, 123 A.D.2d 752, 754). Here, the defendants made a sufficient showing to defeat the motion for summary judgment and, therefore, the motion was properly denied. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.