Filed Date: 4/26/2005
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
There was no basis for setting aside the jury’s rational findings (see Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493 [1978]). Plaintiff performed its obligations under the agreement by continuing to seek financing commitments from other lenders even after learning that a particular lender, which eventually committed to defendant through another broker, would not do so on the terms sought by defendant (cf. Thomson McKinnon Sec. v Cioccolanti, 161 AD2d 523 [1990]). There were no errors in the jury charge and instructions, or in the ruling that precluded evidence of oral modification. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.