Opinion
May 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on her first two causes of action. The plaintiff proffered sufficient evidence to demonstrate that no triable issues of fact exist with regard to the first two causes of action, and the defendants' papers in opposition to the plaintiff's motion are insufficient to demonstrate otherwise (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557).
The defendants' contention that the plaintiff failed to notify the defendants of the time-of-the-essence closing date is not properly before this Court because it is raised for the first time on appeal. In any event, it is without merit (see, Orellano v Samples Tire Equip. Supply Corp., 110 A.D.2d 757). Therefore, the defendants' failure to appear at the closing, at which the plaintiff tendered marketable title, automatically terminated the defendants' interest in the parcels pursuant to the terms of the contracts of sale.
The defendants' remaining contentions are without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.