Opinion
May 26, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs, and the defendant's time to specifically perform the contract of sale is extended until 20 days after service upon him of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.
The terms of the standard real estate contract of sale and the attached rider are unambiguous and represent the clear intentions of the parties (Chimart Assocs. v. Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570; Laba v Carey, 29 N.Y.2d 302, rearg denied 30 N.Y.2d 694; Levine v. Shell Oil Co., 28 N.Y.2d 205). The defendant's assertion of an apparent contradiction between the contractual provision that the premises would be transferred free of violations at closing and the "as is" clause is without merit. Courts will not adopt interpretations of a contract which would render it without force and effect (see, Laba v. Carey, supra, at 308), particularly in the presence of a merger clause in that contract. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly precluded the defendant from introducing parol evidence to contradict or modify the contract (see, Fogelson v. Rackfay Constr. Co., 300 N.Y. 334, rearg denied 301 N.Y. 552; Katz v. American Tech. Indus., 96 A.D.2d 932).
The defendant's allegations of fraudulent inducement were insufficient to preclude the granting of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (see, Kypreos v. Spiridellis, 124 A.D.2d 786). Further, the defendant has failed to substantiate his claim that his illness prevented him from tending to his affairs (see, Corhill Corp. v. S.D. Plants, Inc., 9 N.Y.2d 595). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Harwood, JJ., concur.