The mortgage contingency clause provided that plaintiffs could cancel within 5 days if a commitment was not obtained by the date specified therein or "on Notice to Seller" if the other stated conditions respecting the mortgage to be obtained by the buyers were not met. By its plain language, the latter portion of the contingency clause did not contain a specific deadline for notice. Where no specific deadline is provided in a mortgage contingency clause, a reasonable time for cancellation thereunder is implied (see Tendler v. Lazar, 141 A.D.2d 717). Plaintiffs' notice of termination, based on the admittedly non-conforming mortgage commitment obtained, served before any closing was set, was reasonable.
Defendants' argument that plaintiffs could not rely upon the mortgage contingency clause because they did not apply for their mortgage in writing, but did so orally, is without merit. The contract of sale did not require a written mortgage application.
In view of defendants' breach in failing to return the down payment, which was released by defendants' attorney to them, imposition of interest at the statutory rate was proper under CPLR 5001(a).
We have considered defendants' other arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.