Tenth City Associates v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tenth City Associates v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance

215 A.D.2d 149, 626 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4767

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

DecidedMay 4, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 149 (Tenth City Associates v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance) 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

Tenth City Associates v. Principal Mutual Life Insurance, 215 A.D.2d 149, 626 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered February 17, 1994, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in the sum of $125,000 plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously reversed, on the law, plaintiffs motion denied and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment in its favor granted, without costs.

By its own terms, plaintiffs mortgage application dated October 9, 1986, which was drafted by it and accordingly must be construed against it, clearly establishes that plaintiff agreed to and was obligated to pay defendant a "Non-Refundable Loan Processing Fee” of $125,000 representing 1/4 of 1% of the $50 million mortgage sought. There is simply no evidence that payment of such fee was contingent in any way upon the parties agreeing on the terms of the proposed mortgage, plaintiff obtaining a mortgage commitment or upon the loan closing. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.), entered February 17, 1994, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment in the sum of $125,000 plus interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously reversed, on the law, plaintiffs motion denied and defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment in its favor granted, without costs.

By its own terms, plaintiffs mortgage application dated October 9, 1986, which was drafted by it and accordingly must be construed against it, clearly establishes that plaintiff agreed to and was obligated to pay defendant a "Non-Refundable Loan Processing Fee” of $125,000 representing 1/4 of 1% of the $50 million mortgage sought. There is simply no evidence that payment of such fee was contingent in any way upon the parties agreeing on the terms of the proposed mortgage, plaintiff obtaining a mortgage commitment or upon the loan closing. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 149, 626 N.Y.S.2d 108, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tenth-city-associates-v-principal-mutual-life-insurance-nyappdiv-1995.