O'ROURKE v. CARLTON

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The respondent established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. It is undisputed that the plaintiff failed to comply with the time limitations specified in the option agreement and failed to tender the specified amount for the down payment. Furthermore, the plaintiff altered the terms of the contract. It is well settled that one attempting to validly exercise an option to purchase real property must strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the option agreement (see, D.A.D. Restaurant v. Anthony Operating Corp., 139 A.D.2d 485).

In opposition to the respondent's prima facie showing, the plaintiff failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 A.D.2d 557). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment and canceled the notice of pendency.