Firtell v. Crest Builders, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Firtell v. Crest Builders, Inc.

159 A.D.2d 352

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 20, 1990·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered January 12, 1989, which, after bench trial, awarded plaintiff judgment in the amount of his down payment, $53,250, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The terms for the sale of these properties were drafted by seller’s attorney and required "purchaser, if he applies for financing, [t]o apply only for an adjustable rate loan with a no-income check verification.” The trial court properly rejected seller’s contention that purchaser’s failure to apply to a specific bank, with whom seller had a favorable relationship and history, constituted a breach of the contract. The quoted provision should be interpreted in accordance with its plain language. It is not for the court to enlarge the meaning of the words in the contract so as to correct seller’s admitted oversight (Senese v Litz, 99 AD2d 580; see also, Macho Assets v Spring Corp., 128 AD2d 680, lv denied 69 NY2d 609). Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered January 12, 1989, which, after bench trial, awarded plaintiff judgment in the amount of his down payment, $53,250, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The terms for the sale of these properties were drafted by seller’s attorney and required "purchaser, if he applies for financing, [t]o apply only for an adjustable rate loan with a no-income check verification.” The trial court properly rejected seller’s contention that purchaser’s failure to apply to a specific bank, with whom seller had a favorable relationship and history, constituted a breach of the contract. The quoted provision should be interpreted in accordance with its plain language. It is not for the court to enlarge the meaning of the words in the contract so as to correct seller’s admitted oversight (Senese v Litz, 99 AD2d 580; see also, Macho Assets v Spring Corp., 128 AD2d 680, lv denied 69 NY2d 609). Concur— Kupferman, J. P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Smith, JJ.

Firtell v. Crest Builders, Inc., 159 A.D.2d 352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

159 A.D.2d 352 (Firtell v. Crest Builders, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related