Rustum v. Pinto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rustum v. Pinto

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

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 17, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 A.D.3d 574 (Rustum v. Pinto) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rustum v. Pinto, 89 A.D.3d 574, 932 N.Y.2d 699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.3d 574, 932 N.Y.2d 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rustum-v-pinto-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack