In Costello v. Casale (281 AD2d 581 [2nd Dept 2001]) the contract of sale between the seller and the buyer required the seller to provide "a valid and subsisting Certificate of Occupancy ... or evidence that none was required, covering the building(s) and all improvements ... authorizing the use as a one (1) family dwelling at the date of Closing." Id. at 582. The seller was unable to produce a certificate of occupancy because the house was built in 1923, and the municipality where the house was located did not begin issuing certificates of occupancy until 1930. Id. Ruling in favor of the buyer-plaintiff who sought to recover her down payment, the court (in a majority opinion) held: Reading the contract as a whole, a practical interpretation of the clause at issue, and one that would give effect to the parties' reasonable expectations, is that the clause required Casale to produce either a certificate of occupancy for the dwelling and property as it existed at the time of closing, or proof that no such certificate was needed. Casale did neither. Thus, Casale breached a condition precedent to the closing of title and Costello is entitled to the return of her down payment. Id. at 583 .