Opinion
2001-06772
Argued March 21, 2002.
April 22, 2002.
In an action to compel specific performance of an option to purchase real property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered April 23, 2001, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and granted the plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment.
Brecher Fishman Pasternack Popish Heller Rubin Reiff, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Christopher D. Latham of counsel), for appellants.
Salamon, Gruber, Newman Blaymore, P.C., Roslyn Heights, N.Y. (Frederick Newman and Louis W. Zapata of counsel), for respondent.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, NANCY E. SMITH, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Although we affirm the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the granting of the plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment, we do so for different reasons than those given by the Supreme Court. We agree with the defendants' contention that the Supreme Court erred in holding that the plaintiff timely exercised its option to purchase the defendants' premises. However, given the plaintiff's large expenditures on the property, the lack of prejudice to the defendants if the option is given effect, and the honest mistake which led to the plaintiff's short delay in exercising its option, equity compels specific performance of the option (see Hirsch v. Lindor Realty Corp., 63 N.Y.2d 878; J.N.A. Realty Corp. v. Cross Bay Chelsea, 42 N.Y.2d 392; Pitkin Seafood v. Pitrock Realty Corp., 146 A.D.2d 618; 2M Realty Corp. v. Boehm, 204 A.D.2d 620). The Supreme Court, therefore, correctly concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment (see generally Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320).
SANTUCCI, J.P., FLORIO, SMITH and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.