Pirzada v. 159 Express Street, LLC

— In an action to recover a down payment made pursuant to a contract for the sale of real property, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jaeger, J.), dated May 14, 2014, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on its counterclaims. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs. The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and on its counterclaims. The defendant established, prima facie, that it did not breach the parties’ contract and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the return of their down payment. It established that it was ready, willing, and able to perform on the time-of-the-essence closing date, and that the plaintiffs did not have a *779 lawful excuse for their failure to close. In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Iacono v Pilavas, 125 AD3d 811 [2015]). The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Mastro, J.P., Austin, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.