Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The question raised by this proceeding is whether the interest of petitioners, who purchased real property pursuant to a land contract, had priority over the interests of subsequent judgment creditors of the contractual vendor. In granting partial summary judgment to petitioners, Supreme Court answered the question in the affirmative. We affirm.
It is well settled that a party purchasing real property pursuant to a land contract is vested with equitable title to that property upon the execution of that contract (see, Barringer v European Am. Bank Trust Co., 138 A.D.2d 437, 438; Bean v Walker, 95 A.D.2d 70, 72; see also, New York Cent. Hudson Riv. R.R. Co. v Cottle, 187 App. Div. 131, 144, affd 229 N.Y. 514). In this case, respondents hold judgment liens against petitioners' contractual vendor. Those liens were secured after equitable title vested in petitioners. Respondents' rights in the subject property are no greater than those of the debtor-contractual vendor. Thus, in attempting to enforce the judgment liens, respondents are entitled only to payments due under the land contract, if any, and cannot proceed directly against the subject real property (see, Barringer v European Am. Bank Trust Co., supra; see also, Leonardo v Siegal, 150 A.D.2d 760; Bean v Walker, supra, at 74).