The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 001) 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 were read on this motion for DISMISSAL. AMENDED DECISION ORDER ON MOTION Upon the foregoing documents, it is hereby ordered that defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) is granted based upon the following memorandum decision. Background In this action to recover a deposit, plaintiff Zeyu Wang (“plaintiff”) asserts two causes of action for breach of contract, and seeks rescission of the contract and return of the deposit (first cause of action) or, alternatively, damages in the amount of the deposit (second cause of action). Defendant 44th Drive Owner LLC (“defendant”) moves to dismiss the entire amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Defendant is the sponsor of the condominium building located at 21-30 44th Drive, Long Island City, New York (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2, 3). On November 24, 2018, the parties entered into a purchase agreement (the “agreement”), pursuant to which plaintiff, a resident and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, agreed to purchase Unit 7-F of the condominium (the “Unit”) (NYSCEF Doc. No. 23). Plaintiff agreed to pay $1,525,000 for the Unit, and an additional $95,000 for a parking space, including within the total a $162,000 deposit due upon signing the agreement (id., 4.1; Rider, 1.1). The agreement provides that plaintiff would default under the agreement if, inter alia, it failed to close on the scheduled closing date (id., 13.1[i]). Upon any such default, defendant was entitled to cancel the agreement and retain the deposit as liquidated damages (id., 13.2). Further, plaintiff agreed that his obligations under the agreement were not contingent on obtaining financing of the purchase price and remained in effect even if plaintiff was ultimately unable to obtain financing (id., 29). On November 18, 2019, defendant sent notice to plaintiff that the closing date for the Unit would be December 18, 2019 (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2, 10). Plaintiff alleges that, prior to defendant sending the notice, the Chinese government’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange “implemented regulations and rules intended to curb the flow of capital out of China, including without limitation, for the purpose of purchasing real estate abroad” (id., 11). Accordingly, plaintiff was unable to transfer funds out of China to pay the balance of the purchase price for the Unit (id., 14). The parties adjourned the closing date several times, during which plaintiff represented that he was attempting to obtain alternate financing of the purchase price (id.,
15-18; NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 10-15). Ultimately, on May 29, 2020, defendant declared that it was cancelling the agreement due to plaintiff’s failure to close on the Unit as required (NYSCEF Doc. No. 2,
