—[*1] Lewis Johs Avallone Aviles, LLP, Melville, N.Y. (Seth M. Weinberg of counsel), for appellants.

Glynn Mercep and Purcell, LLP, Stony Brook, N.Y. (A. Craig Purcell of counsel), for respondent.

In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mayer, J.), entered December 8, 2009, which, upon a decision of the same court (Seidell, J.H.O.) dated March 4, 2009, made after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them, directing specific performance of the contract.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

"In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial court had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses" (BRK Props., Inc. v Wagner Ziv Plumbing & Heating Corp., 89 AD3d 883, 884 [2011]; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]). Here, the Supreme Court's determination that the plaintiff was ready, willing, and able to perform the terms of the subject contract (see Huntington Min. Holdings v Cottontail Plaza, 60 NY2d 997, 998 [1983]; Weiss v Feldbrand, 50 AD3d 673, 674 [2008]; Djukanovic v D'Amico, 40 AD3d 576, 576-577 [2007]; Internet Homes, Inc. v Vitulli, 8 AD3d 438, 439 [2004]; Stawski v Epstein, 67 AD2d 681, 682 [1979]) was warranted by the facts. Thus, we decline to disturb the Supreme Court's determination.

The defendants' remaining contention is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.