the court.” Id. The contracts should not be construed as one agreement. As described above, the regulatory agreements were between different parties and were entered into for different reasons. Although the Grand Manor Regulatory Agreement does make reference to the Hamilton Equities Regulatory Agreement (Grand Manor Regulatory Agmt. § 9), that alone is not dispositive. The intent of the parties, as demonstrated through the agreements, indicates that each was entered into for a different purpose, and therefore the two contracts should not be construed as one contract. Grand Manor lacks standing to enforce provisions of the Hamilton Equities Regulatory Agreement, and Hamilton Equities lacks standing to enforce provision a, No. 96 Civ. 1288, 1997 WL 13189, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 1997) (<HOLDING>). The rights in the Grand Manor Regulatory
holding under new york law that conditions precedent are not a defense to contract formation holding a contract was divisible in its nature  if the intention is expressly stated in the contract holding under new york law that while multiple documents executed at the same time and concerning the same subjectmatter are required to be read together under new york law this does not mean that  any   particularized clauses  can be lifted from one document and transferred to another holding under new york law that even if several contracts that constitute part of the same transaction are considered one contract the different obligations within each contract may be independent and divisible holding that in the event that parties are from different states and the subject matter is national in scope and where the contract states it shall be deemed to be made under the laws of the state of new york and for all purposes construed in accordance with laws of said state new york law applies as the parties choice of law