Plaintiff as seller and defendant as purchaser entered into a written contract for the sale of certain property located in Westhampton Beach. The contract was contingent on purchaser obtaining a mortgage from a lending institution of his choice. Purchaser made prompt application to a bank which denied him a mortgage on the ground that the property was in a flood-hazard area. Following written notice that a bank had rejected the purchaser's application the seller offered to give him a purchase-money mortgage. The purchaser was under no obligation to accept this proposal as the contract specified a mortgage from a lending institution (Glassman v Gerstein, 10 A.D.2d 875). Nor did the purchaser have to apply to a local lending institution that seller asserted would give a mortgage as the contract was clear that the purchaser need only apply to one lending institution of his selection.
"[W]hen, as here, the court can determine the parties' intent by looking at the agreement, the issue is one of law and should be decided by summary judgment." (Pharmaceutical Horizons v Sterling Drug, 127 A.D.2d 514, 515, lv dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 984.)
Summary judgment was properly granted on the ground that there are no triable issue of fact. (CPLR 3212.)
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Ross, Kassal and Smith, JJ.