The motion was properly denied in light of plaintiff's deposition testimony and affidavit describing the parties' long-term relationship and long-range plans, including, in particular, plaintiff's contributions in procuring and renovating the London apartment resulting in the profits that she asserts enabled defendant to purchase the New York apartment in which she claims an interest (see, Sharp v. Kosmalski, 40 N.Y.2d 119; Lester v. Zimmer, 147 A.D.2d 340; Palazzo v. Palazzo, 121 A.D.2d 261).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.