Summary
holding that defendant was not obligated to proceed to closing because an express condition precedent had not been satisfied
Summary of this case from N HOUSTON INTL. v. PW REAL EST INVOpinion
August 9, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the defendant United Artists Properties I Corp. (hereinafter UA) was not required to proceed to closing since an express condition precedent in the contract regarding a mortgage release was not satisfied ( see, Oppenheimer Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon Co., 86 N.Y.2d 685; Marcantonio v. Rousso, 257 A.D.2d 650).
Under the circumstances of this case, the court was correct in dismissing UA's first counterclaim for damages and in directing the return of the plaintiff's deposit ( cf., Albany Motor Inn Rest. v. Watkins, 85 A.D.2d 797).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.