
    Charles CASOLARO, individually, Casolaro & Associates, P.C., Charles John Casolaro, as the Legal Guardian of Albert Casolaro and the Administrator of the Estate of Albert Casolaro, Gene Gregory Voulo, individually, Southfork Equity Group, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Scott ARMSTRONG, Defendant-Appellant, Thalia Street, LLC and Transcend Capital, LP, Defendants.
    No. 15-210-CV.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Jan. 28, 2016.
    
      Kenneth F. McCallion, McCallion & Associates LLP, New York, NY, for Appellant.
    No appearance, for Appellees.
    PRESENT: RALPH K. WINTER, REENA RAGGI, CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant Scott Armstrong appeals from a judgment entered after a bench trial in favor of plaintiffs Charles Casolaro and Gene Voulo on their breach of contract claim. Armstrong argues that the district court erred in concluding that, under the parties’ Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) and Settlement Agreement, plaintiffs (1) adequately performed their obligation to relinquish ownership in a collat-eralized mortgage obligation (the “CMO tranche”) to Armstrong, thus entitling them to damages for Armstrong’s failure to pay the contractual purchase price by July 6, 2010; and (2) have not yet released Armstrong from all potential claims related to that tranche. In reviewing a judgment entered after a bench trial, we review the district court’s conclusions of law de novo and its findings of fact for clear error. See Krist v. Kolombos Rest., Inc., 688 F.3d 89, 95 (2d Cir.2012). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of prior proceedings, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

Armstrong argues that plaintiffs are not entitled to damages for breach of contract because they have not satisfied their PSA obligation to transfer title in the CMO tranche. See Diesel Props S.r.l. v. Greystone Bus. Credit II LLC, 631 F.3d 42, 52 (2d Cir.2011) (explaining that, in breach of contract action, plaintiff must prove (1) existence of contract, (2) plaintiffs performance of its contract obligations, (3) defendant’s breach of contract, and (4) ensuing damages). Armstrong contends that the agreements unambiguously state that title in the tranche does not transfer until his payment of the purchase price, which has not yet occurred. Upon de novo review, see Krumme v. WestPoint Stevens Inc., 238 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir.2000), we conclude, for substantially the reasons stated by the district court, that the PSA is ambiguous as to whether the parties intended the CMO tranche title to transfer to Armstrong when (1) the parties executed the agreements, or (2) plaintiffs received Armstrong’s payment of the $420,000 purchase price, and, therefore, the district court was entitled to consider extrinsic evidence in concluding the former.

In arguing that the PSA unambiguously demonstrates the parties’ intent for transfer to occur upon payment, Armstrong relies on PSA §§ 1.1 and 2.3, which together provide that as of “the effective date of this Agreement, which shall be upon receipt by [plaintiffs] of the Purchase Price,” PSA § 1.1, plaintiffs “will cease to have any right, title or interest whatsoever in the CMO,” id. § 2.3. This argument, however, ignores § 2.1 of the PSA, which states that “[ujpon execution of this Agreement, [plaintiffs] relinquish and will convey any and all right, title and interest in and to the CMO to [Armstrong].” Id. § 2.1 (emphasis added). Accordingly, “read[ing] the integrated agreement as a whole,” Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Retail Holdings, N.V., 639 F.3d 63, 69 (2d Cir. 2011), as we must, we conclude that these seemingly contradictory provisions render the contract ambiguous as to when the parties intended title to transfer, allowing the district court to consider extrinsic evidence to resolve the ambiguity, see FLLI Moretti Cereali S.p.A. v. Continental Grain Co., 563 F.2d 563, 566 (2d Cir.1977) (identifying ambiguity in conflicting assignment provisions regarding rights transfer, permitting parties to “present extrinsic evidence to aid in interpreting” assignment). Armstrong does not dispute the district court’s finding, based on extrinsic evidence, that the parties intended title to transfer at the time the agreements were executed, and, thus, his challenge to the finding that plaintiffs adequately performed their transfer obligation under the PSA fails.

Armstrong maintains that it was “illogical[]” for the district court to conclude that title in the CMO tranche transferred at the time of the agreements’ execution, but that plaintiffs’ claims against Armstrong are not released until his payment of the purchase price. In fact, the latter conclusion is based on unambiguous language in § 1.3 of the Settlement Agreement stating that plaintiffs “agree that upon receipt of the Settlement Payment ... [plaintiffs’] claims are fully and forever released.”. Settlement Agreement § 1.3 (emphasis added). Armstrong contends that this provision is rendered ambiguous by §§ 3.1 and 3.3 of the Settlement Agreement, which state that Voulo and Casolaro “hereby fully and forever release[] and discharge[]” Armstrong from all claims related to the CMO tranche. Like the district court, however, we do not think use of the word “hereby” in §§ 3.1 and 3.3 — without a more specific indication that the parties intended claims to be released before payment, ie., upon execution of the agreements — is sufficient to create ambiguity in the face of § 1.3’s clear expression of the parties’ intent that the claims be released upon plaintiffs’ receipt of payment. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Retail Holdings, N.V., 639 F.3d at 70-71 (concluding that express contract provision for certain business to be transferred was not rendered ambiguous by omission of that business from second provision listing transferred businesses because nothing in second provision indicated intent to be exhaustive). Thus, the district court did not err in concluding, based on the unambiguous language of § 1.3, that plaintiffs had not yet released their claims due to Armstrong’s failure to pay the purchase price.

We have considered Armstrong’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 
      
      . Because we affirm the conclusion that ownership passed to Armstrong at the time the agreements were executed, his argument that plaintiffs still own the tranche and, therefore, have not suffered damages, necessarily fails.
     
      
      . Insofar as Armstrong contends that the parties intended title to transfer only after he consummated the sale of the CMO tranche to a third party, that argument is foreclosed by the district court’s conclusion at summary judgment — which Armstrong does not challenge on appeal — that such an alleged condition precedent was not included in the PSA or Settlement Agreement, and would be inconsistent with the PSA's unambiguous language providing for payment by a specific date.
     