Opinion
March 20, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.).
The terms for the sale of these properties were drafted by seller's attorney and required "purchaser, if he applies for financing, [t]o apply only for an adjustable rate loan with a no-income check verification." The trial court properly rejected seller's contention that purchaser's failure to apply to a specific bank, with whom seller had a favorable relationship and history, constituted a breach of the contract. The quoted provision should be interpreted in accordance with its plain language. It is not for the court to enlarge the meaning of the words in the contract so as to correct seller's admitted oversight (Senese v Litz, 99 A.D.2d 580; see also, Macho Assets v Spring Corp., 128 A.D.2d 680, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 609).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Smith, JJ.