Rustum v. Pinto

89 A.D.3d 574, 932 N.Y.2d 699

Opinion

The court properly granted plaintiffs’ motion, because, in giving effect to the plain meaning of the unambiguous contract language (see Bailey v Fish & Neave, 8 NY3d 523, 528 [2007]), it found that plaintiffs were unsuccessful in obtaining a “Loan Commitment Letter,” within the meaning of the parties’ contract of sale. Plaintiffs properly cancelled the contract, since paragraph 18.3.1.3 authorized them to cancel the contract if a loan commitment letter contained unmet conditions not concerning plaintiffs. Here, the commitment letter was conditional upon two requirements that were within the control of the lender (see Zellner v Tarnell, 65 AD3d 1335 [2009]; Kapur v Stiefel, 264 AD2d 602, 603 [1999]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Sweeny, Moskowitz, Acosta and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.