SUAREZ v. INGALLS

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant established her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. She properly exercised her right to terminate the contract for the sale of real property on the ground that the plaintiff failed to obtain a mortgage commitment within the time provided by the contract (see, Finkelman v. Wood, 203 A.D.2d 236). Under the particular circumstances of this case, the letter dated May 12, 1999, proposing an extension of the mortgage commitment date was of no legal significance.

There is no merit to the plaintiff's argument that the cancellation was ineffective because it was not sent by certified mail. Strict compliance with the contract notice provisions was not required because the plaintiff does not claim that she did not receive actual notice, or was prejudiced by the deviation (see, Dellicarri v. Hirschfeld, 210 A.D.2d 584). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

SANTUCCI, J.P., S. MILLER, FRIEDMANN and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.