DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeals and cross appeals from the orders are dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeals and cross appeals from the judgment are dismissed, as the judgment was superseded by the amended judgment; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal by the defendant Joan Santini from so much of the amended judgment as was in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Arthur Rothlein is dismissed, as the defendant Joan Santini is not aggrieved by that portion of the amended judgment (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal by the defendant Arthur Rothlein from so much of the amended judgment as was in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Joan Santini is dismissed as the defendant Arthur Rothlein is not aggrieved by that portion of the amended judgment (see, CPLR 5511); and it is further,
ORDERED that the amended judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the plaintiffs are awarded one bill of costs.
The appeals and cross appeals from the intermediate orders must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal and cross appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeals and cross appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeals and cross appeals from the amended judgment (see, CPLR 5501[a][1]).
It is well established that the interpretation of a contract is a matter of law for the court (see, 8 05 Third Ave. Co. v. M.W. Realty Assoc., 58 N.Y.2d 447). Whether a contract is clear or ambiguous is for the court to determine as a matter of law (WWW Assocs. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157). The court here did not err in finding that the instant contract was not ambiguous. The contract provided that, in order to ensure continuity in the ownership and management of a close corporation, the surviving shareholders would purchase the shares of any deceased shareholder at $22,000 a share. As the Supreme Court correctly found, the parties' agreement did not reflect an intention that the procurement of life insurance was a condition precedent to the surviving shareholders' obligation to purchase the decedent's shares (see , e.g., Manning v. Michaels, 149 A.D.2d 897; see also, Pine v. Okoniewski, 256 App. Div. 519, 521).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.