Opinion
June 15, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Beatrice Shainswit, J.).
The mortgage consolidation and extension agreement in issue was correctly held to be null and void on the ground that, by its terms, it requires the intended mortgagor, defendant, to own the subject premises, which defendant never did. The record shows that the parties intended that defendant would purchase the premises from the owner, a nonparty who was then in default on his mortgages with plaintiff, and that plaintiff would consolidate and extend the original mortgages to defendant. The parties imprudently executed the consolidation agreement before the sale from the nonparty to defendant was finalized or its intent was memorialized in contract and, when negotiations for the sale ultimately failed, defendant rightly refused to make the mortgage payments.
We have considered plaintiff's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.