1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.3d
  4. 89 A.D.3d
  5. 89 A.D.3d 574 (2011)
 

RUSTUM v. PINTO

6085, 113020/10.

89 A.D.3d 574 (2011)

932 N.Y.S.2d 699

2011 NY Slip Op 8297

JOHN RUSTUM et al., Respondents, v. CAMILA A. PINTO, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

Decided November 17, 2011.

The court properly granted plaintiffs' motion, because, in giving effect to the plain meaning of the unambiguous contract language (see Bailey v Fish & Neave, 8 N.Y.3d 523, 528 [2007]), it found that plaintiffs were unsuccessful in obtaining a "Loan Commitment Letter," within the meaning of the parties' contract of sale. Plaintiffs properly cancelled the contract, since paragraph 18.3.1.3 authorized them to cancel the contract...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases