DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501[a][1]).
The record demonstrates, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff buyer was ready, willing, and able to perform his obligations under the contract, even though his tender of performance was excused by the defendant seller's anticipatory breach (see, Cohn v. Mezzacappa Bros., 155 A.D.2d 506; Jewell v. Rowe, 119 A.D.2d 634, 635; Friends of Animals v. Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 N.Y.2d 1065, 1067). Accordingly, the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment on the complaint seeking specific performance of the real estate contract dated May 24, 1993, and its subsequent amendments was properly granted (see, S.E.S. Importers v. Pappalardo, 53 N.Y.2d 455).
The defendants' remaining contention is without merit.