Opinion
April 10, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hurowitz, J.).
Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting from the first decretal paragraph thereof the words "to be fixed and determined as hereinafter provided" and the words "after the price to be paid is fixed" and by adding thereto, after the word "consideration" the words: "in the amount of $131,000", and (2) by deleting the second decretal paragraph thereof; as so modified, the interlocutory judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the letter dated April 5, 1984, which was signed by the appellants-respondents' attorney and the lease and rider dated April 29, 1984, constituted one agreement and should be read together (Nau v. Vulcan Rail Constr. Co., 286 N.Y. 188; Williams v. Mobil Oil Corp., 83 A.D.2d 434; Exchange Leasing Corp. v. Bundy, 29 A.D.2d 828) and that the agreement, as a whole, granted the respondent-appellant an option to purchase the cooperative apartment. However, the Supreme Court erred in determining that the price was to be the highest price established by 1 of 3 stated methods. The letter dated April 5, 1984, indicated that the terms of the option would "be according to the Plan". The record indicates that the price of the subject cooperative apartment, as listed in the offering plan, was, at all relevant times, $127,000. The respondent-appellant however, concedes in his brief that "notwithstanding the terms of the Offering Plan and Amendments, the apartment and shares were listed by the defendants for sale at $131,000 * * * it is also true that $131,000 is the price which the [respondent-appellant] agreed to pay for the apartment and shares." Since the respondent-appellant by his own admission "was and is prepared to pay the price he previously agreed to pay, to wit $131,000", the interlocutory judgment has been modified to the extent indicated. Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Brown and Harwood, JJ., concur.