Summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff purchaser upon his first cause of action seeking specific performance of the parties' contract for the sale of certain real estate. Although appellant sellers maintain that they were entitled to cancel the subject contract pursuant to a contractual provision permitting cancellation in the event that they were unable to convey title free of objectionable liens and encumbrances, the record establishes that they were simply unwilling to bear the cost of conveying title in accordance with requirements of the contract. Volitional unwillingness, as distinguished from good faith inability, to meet contractual obligations, furnishes neither a ground for cancellation of the contract nor a defense against its specific performance (see Naso v. Haque, 289 A.D.2d 309; Barnett v. Star Mech. Corp., 171 A.D.2d 142).
We have reviewed appellants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.