Opinion
2002-10060
Submitted May 19, 2003.
June 16, 2003.
In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golar, J.), dated September 20, 2002, as granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the cause of action for specific performance of the contract and to dismiss the first counterclaim seeking rescission of the contract.
Warren S. Hecht, Forest Hills, N.Y., for appellant.
Raymond A. Giusto, P.C., East Islip, N.Y. (John P. Bues of counsel), for respondent.
Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
After the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for summary judgment, the defendant failed to raise any triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of a certain contract for the sale of real property (see generally Gorenstein v. Debralaurie Realty Co., 280 A.D.2d 642; Jill Real Estate v. Smyles, 150 A.D.2d 640, 642-643). Also, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact, inter alia, that the contract was induced by fraud (see Pais-Built Homes v. Beckett, 297 A.D.2d 726, 727; Busch v. Mastropierro, 258 A.D.2d 492, 493; Crafton Bldg. Corp. v. St. James Constr. Corp., 221 A.D.2d 407, 408-409). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were for summary judgment on the cause of action for specific performance of the contract and to dismiss the first counterclaim seeking rescission of the contract.
SMITH, J.P., S. MILLER, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.