| LKE Family Ltd. Partnership v Gillen Living Trust |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01202 [59 AD3d 602] |
| February 17, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| LKE Family Limited Partnership, Appellant, v GillenLiving Trust et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Charles G. Mills, Glen Cove, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of an option to purchase real property, theplaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), entered July11, 2007, which, upon an order of the same court dated June 25, 2007, inter alia, granting thatbranch of the defendants' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, isin favor of the defendants and against it dismissing the complaint.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, for specific performance of an option topurchase real property contained within an agreement (hereinafter the option agreement) enteredinto by the parties after the defendants purchased the subject property at a foreclosure sale. Insupport of that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint, the defendants demonstrated, prima facie, that the plaintiff failed to strictly adhere tothe terms and conditions of the option agreement in that, inter alia, the plaintiff failed to complywith a condition precedent to the exercise of the option by failing to make rental payments to thedefendants for the use of the property prior to the sale (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; see also Raanan v Tom's Triangle, 303 AD2d 668, 669 [2003];O'Rourke v Carlton, 286 AD2d 427 [2001]).
In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to raise a triableissue of fact (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; see alsoMohring Enters. v HSBC Bank USA, 291 AD2d 385, 386 [2002]). Moreover, the plaintifffailed to demonstrate how further [*2]discovery might haveyielded material facts which would warrant the denial of summary judgment (see Francis vBoard of Educ. of City of Mount Vernon, 278 AD2d 449 [2000]). Accordingly, the SupremeCourt properly determined that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.