Opinion
Submitted May 24, 2000.
July 24, 2000.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated February 8, 2000, as denied its motion for summary judgment.
Bondy Schloss, LLP, New York, N.Y. (S. Robert Schrager of counsel), for appellant.
Peter J. Shatzkin, P.C., New York, N.Y., for respondents Veekay Tejpaul and Kavita Lund.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, SONDRA MILLER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the respondents Veekay Tejpaul and Kavita Lund.
"Although a court should not undertake the construction of an unambiguous agreement, the question of whether ambiguity exists must be determined by reading the agreement as a whole (see, Wing v. Wing, 112 A.D.2d 932; A Z Appliances v. Electric Burglar Alarm Co., 90 A.D.2d 802). In addition, it is a canon of contract construction that an agreement will be construed most strongly against the party who prepared it" (Strauss Paper Co. v. RSA Executive Search, 260 A.D.2d 570, 571). The documents comprising the agreement at issue, which were undisputedly prepared by the plaintiff, are ambiguous. It is impossible to ascertain whether the amount claimed due was secured by the mortgage at issue. Thus, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was properly denied.