Respondent also argues that the language in the stipulation entitles it to a judgment for the amount of the security deposit. Specifically, according to respondent, the wording "the security deposit + interest, if any," should be read to mean that the security deposit is to be returned unconditionally, and interest is to be returned conditionally, "if any" exists. Respondent's attorney argues that the stipulation was handwritten by petitioner's attorney in court on October 24, 2005, that he too was present, that he made the agreement and he affirms that the "if any" language applied only to interest. Respondent contends that as petitioner's attorney drafted the stipulation, this ambiguity in its language is to be liberally construed in favor of respondent, the non-drafter.
Petitioner opposes the motion, averring that the stipulation, not the lease, controls, that the "if any" language clearly refers to the security deposit, not the interest, and that as petitioner never received a security deposit at the time of the acquisition of the premises, there is no security deposit to tender to respondent.