Chowdhury v. SorokaChowdhury v. Soroka
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
In response to the plaintiff’s showing of his entitlement to summary judgment directing the specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the appellant failed to show the existence of a triable issue of fact (see generally Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324-325 [1986]; Moutafis v Osborne, 7 AD3d 686 [2004]; S.J.K. Realtors Inc. v Matlock, 306 AD2d 396 [2003]). She also failed to show that the motion should be denied as premature pursuant to
In light of this determination, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. H. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur.