## Facts

- Merritt Hill Vineyards, Inc. agreed in September 1981 to purchase a controlling stock interest in Windy Heights Vineyard, Inc., owned by Leon Taylor.
- Merritt Hill paid a $15,000 deposit under a written stock purchase agreement.
- The agreement stated Taylor would retain the deposit as liquidated damages if the sale did not close, unless Taylor/Windy Heights failed to satisfy conditions in § 3.
- Section 3 was titled “Conditions Precedent to Purchaser’s Obligation to Close” and made the purchaser’s duty to close “subject to” listed conditions.
- Conditions included, by closing: (1) Windy Heights obtaining a title insurance policy insuring good and marketable title subject only to specified exceptions; and (2) both parties receiving Farmers Home Administration confirmation that existing mortgages remained in effect and the stock sale would not trigger default or change terms.
- The contract made time of the essence.
- At the scheduled closing in April 1982, no title insurance policy had issued and the Farmers Home Administration letter was alleged not to meet the contractual confirmation requirement.
- Merritt Hill refused to close, demanded return of the deposit, and sued for return of the deposit plus about $26,000 in consequential damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the title insurance and mortgage confirmation provisions were contractual promises (supporting consequential damages upon nonperformance) or conditions precedent (merely excusing the purchaser’s duty to close).
2. Whether the Appellate Division could grant summary judgment to the nonmoving party on the consequential-damages claim by “searching the record” under CPLR 3212(b), without a cross-appeal.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division.
- The title insurance and mortgage confirmation requirements were conditions precedent to the purchaser’s obligation to close, not promises by the sellers.
- Nonoccurrence of those conditions excused Merritt Hill from closing and required return of the $15,000 deposit under the parties’ liquidated-damages arrangement.
- Because failure of a condition is not a breach, Merritt Hill could not recover consequential damages on that theory.
- The Appellate Division had authority under CPLR 3212(b) to search the record and award summary judgment to defendants on the consequential-damages claim without a cross-appeal.

## Legal Principles

- A condition precedent is an uncertain event that must occur before a contractual duty becomes due; its nonoccurrence excuses the conditional duty but is not itself a breach.
- A promise is a commitment to act or refrain from acting; nonperformance is a breach that may support damages.
- Contract language and structure control classification; headings and “subject to” phrasing may indicate that a provision is a condition, not a promise.
- Where a contract ties the parties’ remedies to the failure of specified conditions (e.g., deposit return versus forfeiture), courts may limit relief to the remedy the contract contemplates.
- Under CPLR 3212(b), an appellate court may search the record and grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party when the dispositive issue is fully presented and there is no material factual dispute, without requiring a cross-motion or cross-appeal.

## Conclusion

The court held that the sellers’ failure to obtain title insurance and specified mortgage confirmation prevented the purchaser’s duty to close from arising, requiring return of the deposit but not consequential damages, and it approved the Appellate Division’s power to grant summary judgment to the nonmoving party by searching the record.


Merritt Hill Vineyards, Inc. v. Windy Heights Vineyard, Inc., 61 N.Y.2d 106 (1984)