Opinion
May 19, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated June 11, 1996, is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated August 23, 1996, is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondent First Fidelity Bank of New Jersey is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate order dated June 11, 1996, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 6601 [a][1]).
The interpretation of a written contract is within the province of the court and, if the language of the contract is free from ambiguity, its meaning may be determined as a matter of law on the basis of the writing alone without resort to extrinsic evidence (see, Chimart Assocs. v. Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570, 572-573; Mallad Constr. Corp. v. County Fed. Sav. Loan Assn., 32 N.Y.2d 286, 291; Weiner v. Anesthesia Assocs., 203 A.D.2d 464). Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the unambiguous language in paragraph four of the building loan contract did not obligate the respondents to ensure that the house was constructed properly and in accordance with the filed plans.
In view of the plaintiff's conduct in this litigation, the award of attorney's fees was not an improvident exercise of the court's discretion (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.1).
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.
Miller, J.P., Copertino, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.