Opinion
July 14, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kalinowski, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Inasmuch as there was no delivery of the promissory note in question by the escrow agent to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not establish that it was entitled to delivery of the note pursuant to the terms of the oral escrow agreement, the trial court properly dismissed the complaint, which had been predicated on the promissory note ( see, Balart v. Romeo, 215 A.D.2d 616).
Moreover, the trial court's findings as to the merit of certain of the defendants' counterclaims find ample support in the record.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.