Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The plaintiff does not dispute that the mortgage for which he applied was in an amount that was $100,000 greater than that required under the express terms of the mortgage contingency clause of the contract which provided for a commitment "of 2,000,000". Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff breached the contract as a matter of law and that he is not entitled to recover the down payment (see, Silva v Celella, 153 A.D.2d 847; cf., Slamow v Del Col, 174 A.D.2d 725, affd 79 N.Y.2d 1016).
We further conclude that the defendant Mengoni's remedy at law, which is an award of money damages, was adequate to compensate him under these circumstances and accordingly the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in dismissing his counterclaim seeking specific performance of the contract of sale (see, Piro v Bowen, 76 A.D.2d 392).
We have reviewed the remaining contentions of the defendant Mengoni and conclude that they are without merit. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Eiber, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.