8785. AHMAD ALAVIAN plf-res, v. TED ZANE, def-ap, ARNOLD ROSS, def — Ateshoglou & Aiello, P.C., New York (Steven D. Ateshoglou of counsel), for ap — Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C., New York (Jeffrey R. Metz of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Milton A. Tingling, J.), entered March 5, 2012, which, insofar as appealed, denied defendant Ted Zane's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against him, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the cross-motion granted, and the complaint dismissed as against Zane.

Plaintiffs assert that, for a period of over four years, defendants deliberately interfered with the closing of executed contracts of sale of two cooperative apartments. It is undisputed, however, that the contracts satisfactorily closed in August 2011. Delay, even "substantial delay," in the closing of a real estate transaction does not constitute breach of the contract of sale (Ulysses I & Co. v. Feldstein, 75 AD3d 990, 992 [3d Dept], lv dismissed in part, denied in part, 15 NY3d 944 [2010]). Accordingly, since there was no "actual breach" of the contracts of sale, plaintiffs may not maintain a claim for tortious interference with contract against Zane (see NBT Bancorp Inc. v. Fleet/Norstar Fin. Group, Inc., 87 NY2d 614, 620-21 [1996]; Ulysses, 75 AD3d at 991-92).

We note that plaintiffs' only other claim against Zane, for injunctive relief in the form of an order preventing him from interference with the closing, was mooted by the fact that the closing has occurred.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Andrias, J.P., Friedman, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels, Gische ,JJ. 8787 In re William H. Depperman,[M-4842] Petitioner,

-against-

Hon. Barbara R. Kapnick, etc., Respondent.

William H. Depperman, petitioner pro se.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York (Charles F. Sanders of counsel), for respondent.

The above-named petitioner having presented an application to this Court praying for an order, pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, Now, upon reading and filing the papers in said proceeding, and due deliberation having been had thereon,It is unanimously ordered that the application be and the same hereby is denied and the petition dismissed, without costs or disbursements.