200 Genesee Street Corp. v. City of Utica

New York Court of Appeals

200 Genesee Street Corp. v. City of Utica

844 N.E.2d 742, 6 N.Y.3d 761, 811 N.Y.S.2d 288

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 10, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 844 N.E.2d 742 (200 Genesee Street Corp. v. City of Utica) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

200 Genesee Street Corp. v. City of Utica, 844 N.E.2d 742, 6 N.Y.3d 761, 811 N.Y.S.2d 288 (N.Y. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, defendants’ motion for summary judgment granted, and judgment granted declaring that plaintiff is not entitled to 235 “covered” parking spaces under its 1979 contract with the City of Utica.

We agree with Supreme Court that the 1979 contract clearly and unambiguously provides that' defendant agreed to provide plaintiff with up to 235 unreserved and unallocated parking spaces. The contract is silent on the location of those spaces and the number of floors in the parking garage. Inasmuch as the contract was negotiated between sophisticated business people negotiating at arm’s length, Supreme Court appropriately refrained from reading language into the contract that the parties agreed the City would provide plaintiff with 235 “covered” parking spaces (see Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 NY3d 470, 475 [2004]). Because this is.a declaratory judgment action, Supreme Court should have declared the rights of the parties rather than simply dismissing the complaint (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 340 [1962], appeal dismissed 371 US 74, cert denied 371 US 901 [1963]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum; Judge Read taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, defendants’ motion for summary judgment granted, and judgment granted declaring that plaintiff is not entitled to 235 “covered” parking spaces under its 1979 contract with the City of Utica.

We agree with Supreme Court that the 1979 contract clearly and unambiguously provides that' defendant agreed to provide plaintiff with up to 235 unreserved and unallocated parking spaces. The contract is silent on the location of those spaces and the number of floors in the parking garage. Inasmuch as the contract was negotiated between sophisticated business people negotiating at arm’s length, Supreme Court appropriately refrained from reading language into the contract that the parties agreed the City would provide plaintiff with 235 “covered” parking spaces (see Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 NY3d 470, 475 [2004]). Because this is.a declaratory judgment action, Supreme Court should have declared the rights of the parties rather than simply dismissing the complaint (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 340 [1962], appeal dismissed 371 US 74, cert denied 371 US 901 [1963]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum; Judge Read taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

844 N.E.2d 742, 6 N.Y.3d 761, 811 N.Y.S.2d 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/200-genesee-street-corp-v-city-of-utica-ny-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack