Russell v McKay

Russell v McKay 2007 NY Slip Op 01549 [37 AD3d 698] February 20, 2007 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. As corrected through Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Dolores Russell, Appellant,
v
Mark McKay et al., Respondents.

—[*1] Scheyer & Jellenik, Nesconset, N.Y. (Richard I. Scheyer of counsel), for appellant.

Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Patrick McCormick of counsel), for respondents.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a real estate contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated August 3, 2005, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting evidence that the contract at issue was unambiguous and clearly contradicted the assertions made by the plaintiff in her complaint (see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., supra; Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). Accordingly, the court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Lifson and Carni, JJ., concur.