To determine if the Agreement here was terminable for convenience, the court must look first to the terms of the written Agreement (see e.g. Few Spirits v. UB Distribs., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 418, 418 [1st Dept 2021] ["court correctly found that the contract was unambiguous and was the 'complete and exclusive statement of the terms of (the parties') understanding and agreement'"]). Here, this court finds, as a matter of law, that the termination for convenience provision in the Agreement, stating that "[t]he Owner may also terminate this Agreement for its convenience upon thirty (30) days written notice" (Agreement, p. 3), is clear and unambiguous, and reflects the intent of the parties (see Crow & Sutton Assoc, Inc. v. Welliver McGuire, Inc., 32 A.D.3d 651, 651-652 [3d Dept 2006] [enforcing plain meaning of termination-for-convenience payment provision]).

See notice of motion (motion sequence number 005), exhibit A. As a result, the court concludes that the parties have "laid bare their proof by submitting a copy of the governing contract, and that they have "charted a summary judgment course" with respect to the justifiable reliance issue, since they have "presented only issues of law and not issues of fact" on this reargument motion. See e.g., Few Spirits v UB Distribs., LLC, 192 A.D.3d 418, 418 (lstDept 2021), citing Four Seasons Hotels v Vinnik, 127 A.D.2d 310, 320 (1st Dept 1987); Hernandez v 2075-2081 Wallace Ave. Owners Corp., 176 A.D.3d 467, 467 (1st Dept 2019). Accordingly, the court elects to treat this motion as a request for summary judgment to dismiss the buyer defendants' "fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation" cross-claim, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c).