OPINION Plaintiff 28th Highline Associates, L.L.C. (“Plaintiff” or “Highline”) has moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. P. 12(c) and for fees and costs pursuant to the parties’ agreement.Plaintiff seeks the release of a deposit on a luxury apartment pursuant to a written agreement between the property seller and purchaser after the Defendant failed to close on the purchase. Under the agreement dated December 2015 (the “Agreement”), Defendant agreed to purchase from Plaintiff a condominium apartment, a storage unit, and a parking space in a building then under construction in Manhattan. As required, Defendant placed a 20 percent deposit on the property, in the amount of $2,113,000.00, to be held in escrow until the closing of title and Defendant’s transfer to Plaintiff (the sponsor/seller) of the remainder of the purchase price.When construction completed in July 2017, Plaintiff notified Defendant of the scheduled closing date, but Defendant did not close on the sale within the time prescribed by the Agreement. Pursuant to the Agreement, Plaintiff issued a notice of default on November 9, 2017, giving Defendant 30 days to cure and close. Defendant failed to close within the prescribed cure period.After fruitless discussions between the parties, on January 19, 2018, Plaintiff wrote Defendant that it was planning to terminate the Agreement pursuant to its explicit termination provisions. In response, Defendant issued a notice to the escrow agent claiming that he was fraudulently induced into the Agreement through alleged oral misrepresentations, and instructed the escrow agent to hold the deposit. On January 24, 2018, Plaintiff terminated the Agreement and demanded that the escrow agent release the deposit. However, under the Agreement, the escrow agent may not release the deposit until either: (1) the parties jointly execute a statement in writing directing that it be released; or (2) a final, non-appealable order or judgment of a court is entered. This action therefore ensued seeking release of the deposit. The Defendant filed counterclaims alleging fraudulent inducement and repudiation. Based upon the conclusions set forth below, the motion of the Plaintiff is granted, and the cross-motion of the Defendant is denied.I. Prior Proceedings and AllegationsIn 2014, construction began on 520 West 28th Condominium (the “Condominium”), located at 520 West 28th Street, New York, NY 10001 (the “Building”). (Declaration of Emily Reisbaum, dated May 25, 2018 (“Reisbaum Decl.”) Ex. 1 (“Compl.”),
2, 15, 17). The Building was designed by the Pritzker Prize-winning architect Zaha Hadid and is located immediately adjacent to the High Line. (Id. 16). Plaintiff, the sponsor under the offering plan of the Condominium, began listing planned apartments for sale while construction of the Building took place. (Id.
