You are here: / / DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY,...

DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants were unable to demonstrate that plaintiff was not able to prove whether plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to close in the action for specific performance:

To prevail on a cause of action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, a plaintiff purchaser must establish that it substantially performed its contractual obligations and was ready, willing, and able to perform its remaining obligations, that the vendor was able to convey the property, and that there was no adequate remedy at law … . Here, on that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action for specific performance, the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of establishing that the plaintiff was unable to prove one or more of the elements of its cause of action. The defendants failed to demonstrate the absence of triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff purchaser was ready, willing, and able to close on Contract One … . The defendants also failed to eliminate triable issues of fact with respect to whether they validly cancelled the contracts.

Similarly, since the defendants did not establish that they validly cancelled the contracts, they did not demonstrate their prima facie entitlement to a judgment declaring that the contracts are not binding and are unenforceable.

Since the defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action for specific performance and declaring that the contracts are not binding and are unenforceable, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers … . Chester Green Estates, LLC v Arlington Chester, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03657, Second Dept 5-23-18

​REAL ESTATE (SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE (DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))/SUMMARY JUDGMENT (REAL ESTATE, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF COULD NOT PROVE IT WAS READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO CLOSE IN THIS ACTION FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE, DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OPPOSING PAPERS (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT WAS SPEEDING AT THE TIME HE LOST CONTROL OF THE CAR, WENT DOWN AN EMBANKMENT AND STRUCK A TREE, KILLING A PASSENGER, THE EVIDENCE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE “DANGEROUS SPEEDING;” THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE AND RECKLESS DRIVING CHARGES; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT). ​
“Conclusory” Affidavit Submitted In Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action Did Not Demonstrate the Allegation Defendants Were Directly Liable for Negligent Maintenance of a Taxi Cab Was “Not a Fact At All”—Analytical Criteria Explained
REMOVAL OF THE CHILD FROM MOTHER’S CARE WAS NOT WARRANTED, NO SHOWING OF AN IMMINENT THREAT TO THE CHILD’S LIFE OR HEALTH (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT HIRED BECAUSE HE TESTED POSITIVE FOR MARIJUANA WHEN HE WAS UNDER TREATMENT WITH MARIJUANA; THAT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT SOLE SHAREHOLDER OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ACTION AGAINST HIM PREMISED UPON PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT WERE VIOLATED AND WHETHER DEFENDANT CORPORATION WAS STRIPPED OF ASSETS SUCH THAT IT COULD NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS (SECOND DEPT).
School’s Duty to Supervise the Child Had Ended When the Child Was Struck by a Car Just Outside the School Building/City Is Immune from Liability for Alleged Negligent Traffic Control—No “Special Relationship” with the Child
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ALLOW THE EX PARTE INTERVIEW OF THE NONPARTY TREATING PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER SLIP AND FALL WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
Warrantless Entry Into Defendant’s Backyard Constituted a Search/Defendant Had a Legitimate Expectation of Privacy in His Backyard

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT GOULD DEMONSTRATED THE OTHER DRIVER, DEFENDANT PAPPAS, FAILED... DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT’S COUNTERCLAIM FOR ADVERSE POSSESSION PROPERLY...