TWTCLP’s argument is persuasive. 7WTCLP had no “expectancy of economic advantage” in Tenant’s Property on September 11, 2001. In the cases upon which Citigroup relies, the insured had an insurable interest at the time of the loss. The expectancy was not hypothetical, but in fact existed at the time of the loss. See Scarola, v. Ins. Co. of N. Am., 81 N.Y.2d 411, 340 N.Y.S.2d 630, 292 N.E.2d 776 (1972) (finding that the plaintiff had an insurable interest in a car which he paid value for without knowledge that it was stolen and which he was in possession of at the time of the loss, despite the fact that the rightful owner could emerge and assert superior title to the vehicle); Deck v. Chautauqua Co. Patrons’ Fire Relief Assoc., 73 Misc.2d 1048, 343 N.Y.S.2d 855 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1973) (<HOLDING>). Here, it is clear that on September 11, 2001,
holding that buyers of real property who were in constructive possession of the property had made a down payment and had signed a contract to purchase at the time of the loss had an insurable interest in the property despite a court determination two years after the loss that the agreement to purchase was not binding holding that where purchaser had taken possession and paid part of the purchase price the statute of frauds did not bar enforcement of a purchase agreement holding that trial court erred as a matter of law by enforcing contract for purchase of real property that had terminated by its own terms holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that contract for purchase of real property terminated by its own terms upon buyers giving of a certain notice and that therefore the contract was no longer valid and enforceable