DAIRO v. ROCKWAY BLVD

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Before specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property may be awarded, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he or she was ready, willing, and able to perform on the original law day or, if time is not of the essence, on a subsequent date fixed by the parties or within a reasonable time thereafter ( see Chavez v Eli Homes, Inc., 7 AD3d 657, 659; Ferrone v Tupper, 304 AD2d 524, 525). The plaintiff must make this showing regardless of whether the defendant was able to convey the property in accordance with the terms of the contract ( see Huntington Min. Holdings v Cottontail Plaza, 60 NY2d 997, 998; City Ownership v Giambrone, 5 AD3d 529; Zelmanovitch v Ramos, 299 AD2d 353, 354). Here, the plaintiff failed to satisfy her prima facie burden of establishing her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in that she failed to demonstrate that she had the financial capacity to purchase the subject property ( see Singh v Gopaul, 26 AD3d 370; Tsabari v Haye, 13 AD3d 360). The plaintiff did not obtain a "commitment" under the contract of sale as the approval of her mortgage application was conditioned upon a written appraisal satisfactory to the lending institution ( see Eves v Bureau, 13 AD3d 1004, 1005; 1550 Fifth Ave. Bay Shore v 1550 Fifth Ave., 297 AD2d 781, 782-783; Lindenbaum v Royco Prop. Corp., 165 AD2d 254, 258). While the plaintiff alleges that the defendant frustrated her attempt to obtain a "commitment" by denying the appraiser access to the property ( see Wells v Meader, 192 AD2d 827, 828-829), she failed to submit evidence in admissible form demonstrating as much ( see CPLR 3212 [b]; Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324). Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on her cause of action for specific performance.