DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the defendant seller that the two mortgage commitments obtained by the plaintiff purchasers failed to comply with the requirements of the contract's mortgage contingency clause, since they were both for a greater amount than permitted by that clause, and were conditional, and therefore not "firm," as required by the contract (
see 1550 Fifth Ave. Bay Shore v. 1550 Fifth Ave.,
297 A.D.2d 781, 783;
Post v. Mengoni, 198 A.D.2d 487;
Silva v. Celella, 153 A.D.2d 847, 848).
We nevertheless affirm the denial of the motion for summary judgment because a triable issue of fact exists as to whether the conduct of the defendant seller evinced an intent to waive the right to cancel the contract based on the plaintiff purchasers' failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the mortgage contingency clause ( see Sibinga v. Ingenito, 306 A.D.2d 457; Ehrenpreis v. Klein, 260 A.D.2d 532; Kaufman v. Haverstraw Rd. Lands, 158 A.D.2d 675; Gresser v. Princi, 128 A.D.2d 752).
McGINITY, J.P., LUCIANO, SCHMIDT and RIVERA, JJ., concur.