Opinion
12-15-2016
INTERAUDI BANK, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. MOORGATE INVESTMENTS LIMITED, et al., Defendants–Respondents, Jean–Charles Lignel, et al., Defendants.
Pearce Law Firm, New York (Donald Pearce of counsel), for appellant. Law Offices of Bettina Schein, New York (Bettina Schein of counsel), for respondents.
Pearce Law Firm, New York (Donald Pearce of counsel), for appellant.
Law Offices of Bettina Schein, New York (Bettina Schein of counsel), for respondents.
ACOSTA, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, GISCHE, WEBBER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan M. Kenney, J.), entered on or about April 14, 2016, which denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on its claim for foreclosure and sale of certain commercial properties, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion granted.
The parties' forbearance agreement expressly conditioned plaintiff's extension of the loan maturity date on plaintiff's receipt of $1,000,000 toward reduction in the principal from the proceeds of certain art sales by the loan payment guarantor at two November 2015 auctions (see Unigard Sec. Ins. Co. v. North Riv. Ins. Co., 79 N.Y.2d 576, 581, 584 N.Y.S.2d 290, 594 N.E.2d 571 [1992] ). This express condition rendered time of the essence (Baiting Hollow Acquisitions v. Estates of Baiting Hollow, 266 A.D.2d 490, 698 N.Y.S.2d 731 [2d Dept.1999] ) and had to be complied with literally (Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 N.Y.2d 685, 690, 636 N.Y.S.2d 734, 660 N.E.2d 415 [1995] ). Because defendants failed to comply with the terms of the condition, the loan maturity date was not extended, and plaintiff is entitled as a matter of law to foreclose on the mortgage and note.