Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002

Mohring Enterprises, Inc. v. HSBC Bank USA

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 4, 2002

291 A.D.2d 385; 736 N.Y.S.2d 888; 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1266

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Yeon v. Mehta (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
LaPonte v. Dunn (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Cantalupo Construction Corp. v. 2319 Richmond Terrace Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Comito v. Foot of Main, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Pacific Dean Realty, LLC v. Specific Street, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Pacific Dean Realty, LLC v. Specific Street, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Comito v. Foot of Main, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Comito v. Foot of Main, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
LKE Family v. Gillen Living Trust (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
R.I. Island House, LLC v. North Town Phase II Houses, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
Zafarani v. Gluck (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Bey v. Maratea (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Warshawsky, J.), entered October 25, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment and for an inquest as to damages.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into a five-year mortgage loan agreement with an option to allow the plaintiff to extend the loan for an additional five years. The agreement explicitly set forth the terms and conditions by which the plaintiff could exercise the option. The plaintiff contends that it properly exercised the option to extend the mortgage loan, and that the defendant breached this agreement when it demanded full payment of the loan before the date the plaintiff believed was the new maturation date.

It is well settled that the optionee must exercise the option in accordance with its terms within the time and in the manner specified in the option (see, Kaplan v Lippman, 75 NY2d 320; Willis v Ronan, 249 AD2d 299). Despite the fact that the plaintiff expressed a desire to exercise the option, the defendant submitted uncontroverted evidence that the plaintiff failed to comply with the specific terms and conditions set forth in the agreement to exercise the option. In response, the plaintiff failed to submit evidence raising an issue of fact with regard to *386whether it properly exercised the option to extend the loan. Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Prudenti, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.