The causes of action against the cooperative for tortious interference with contract were properly dismissed, the only interference alleged being its refusal to approve plaintiff's application to purchase the subject apartment, a contingency specifically contemplated in the contract of sale. Plaintiff's fraud claims, which are based on nondisclosure of the fact that the individual defendant who had shown plaintiff the subject apartment and represented herself to be a broker was on the cooperative's board of directors, were properly dismissed in absence of a confidential relationship between the parties ( see, Moser v. Spizzirro, 31 A.D.2d 537, affd 25 N.Y.2d 941), even if materiality and the other elements of fraud be assumed.

We have considered plaintiff's other arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.