In Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 693, 660 N.E.2d 415, 636 N.Y.S.2d 734 [1995]), the Court of Appeals held that "the critical language of paragraph 4(c) of the letter agreement unambiguously establishes an express condition precedent rather than a promise" and there was "no justifiable basis for applying the doctrine of substantial performance" to the facts of that case (id. at 692). One reason underlying the Court's holding was its finding that the plaintiff had "not suffered a forfeiture or conferred a benefit upon defendant." The matter entailed the loss of a sublease option, and the plaintiff had not claimed that it lost any sums of money by the enforcement of the express condition.