Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff seeking to recover $1.6 million in payments owed to it under contract that also required plaintiff to pay defendant $900,000. While Dist. Ct. found that plaintiff could not prevail in instant action since it had failed to fulfill its own payment obligations under subject contract, Ct. of Appeals found that defendant could not point to plaintiff’s lack of performance, when it too had failed to perform on said contract. Ct. further noted that plaintiff was entitled to some recovery under relevant New York state law, where defendant had continued to use plaintiff’s railroad cars pursuant to terms of contract while insisting that instant contract could not be enforced. As such, Ct. directed Dist. Ct. on remand to net out difference in amount of money owed to each party under terms of contract and to award balance to party to whom it was due.