With regard to the language of the parties' stipulation, the Court finds that the terms are clear and unambiguous. The stipulation unambiguously provides for the return of the security deposit with its attendant interest only "if any" security deposit exists. Nor can this scant language be read to be an affirmative covenant to pay the security deposit to respondent when petitioner did not receive it from its predecessor and is not otherwise obligated to do so. (See Fallert Brewing Co. v Blass, 119 App Div 53, supra.) Moreover, in further support of this reading, it is noted that the security deposit language of the stipulation was not included as part of the itemized breakdown of the consideration given to respondent.
Accordingly, respondent's motion to restore and for a judgment in its favor is denied.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Dated: January 8, 2007___________________________
DICCIA T. PINEDA-KIRWANJudge, Civil Court