Case Name: Michael Slamow et al., Respondents, v. John Del Col, Appellant, et al., Defendant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1992-05-07
Citations: 79 N.Y.2d 1016
Docket Number: 
Parties: Michael Slamow et al., Respondents, v John Del Col, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 79
Pages: 1016–1021

Head Matter:
Michael Slamow et al., Respondents, v John Del Col, Appellant, et al., Defendant.
Argued April 1, 1992;
decided May 7, 1992
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Matthew D. Arkin for appellant.
David W. Silverman for respondents.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division (174 AD2d 725).
We would but add the following, in response to the dissent. The best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in their writing. Here, the words used in the parties' contract are clear and unambiguous, and entitle the purchasers to return of their down payment. That this may be a standard clause in a form for the sale of real property suggests even more strongly that the clause should be rewritten if it is indeed inaccurate, rather than for this Court to speculate as to what the parties to a particular transaction could have believed it meant.