Opinion
3692, 3693.
Decided May 20, 2004.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula J. Omansky, J.), entered March 6, 2003, which denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered September 15, 2003, which granted plaintiff's motion for clarification of the prior order and adhered to its determination that plaintiff was not entitled to a reduction in the purchase price or down payment for the premises, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Sharfstein, LLP, Mineola (Jeffrey A. Miller of counsel), for appellant.
Nesenoff Miltenberg, LLP, New York (Philip A. Byler of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Lerner, Friedman, JJ.
The commercially reasonable meaning of the contract was that it was merely an option to purchase. The motion court properly gave effect to the limitation of remedies provisions in denying a reduction in the purchase price based on the sellers' alleged misrepresentations ( see Chelsea v. Seventh Chelsea Assoc., 304 A.D.2d 498; cf. 9 Bros. Bldg. Supply Corp. v. Buonamicia, 299 A.D.2d 529), and declined to rewrite the contract to include the term sought by plaintiff ( see Chimart Assoc. v. Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570, 573). We have reviewed plaintiff's other contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.