Opinion
2002-09746.
Decided April 5, 2004.
In an action, inter alia, to compel specific performance of a contract for the sale of a cooperative apartment, the defendants John Sealy and Janet Sealy appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ambrosio, J.), dated September 23, 2002, as granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on her cause of action for specific performance.
Michael G. Feurtado, St. Albans, N.Y. (David B. Calendar of counsel), for appellants.
Ron Kaplan, New York, N.Y., for respondent.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The plaintiff demonstrated that she was ready, willing, and able to perform under the contract ( see Sorkin v. Lehrer, 114 A.D.2d 950), and established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324). In opposition, the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( see Sanchez v. Sanchez, 150 A.D.2d 439). Thus, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on her cause of action for specific performance.
SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.