A.C.E. Elevator Co. v. 180 Montague Street, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A.C.E. Elevator Co. v. 180 Montague Street, LLC

11 A.D.3d 294, 782 N.Y.S.2d 716, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11947

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 14, 2004·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J), entered September 4, 2003, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $209,902.40, and directed that defendant’s property be sold at public auction to satisfy plaintiffs mechanic’s lien, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The intention of the parties was fully determinable from the language of the agreement, which was unambiguous (see Kass v Kass, 91 NY2d 554, 566 [1998]). The court thus properly refused to allow extrinsic matter, in the form of a document containing preliminary specifications, into evidence (W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162-163 [1990]). Hearsay testimony of defendant’s lessee, offered for the purpose of proving damages, was also properly disallowed (see Soho Generation of N.Y. v Tri-City Ins. Brokers, 256 AD2d 229, 231-232 [1998]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J), entered September 4, 2003, which, after a jury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $209,902.40, and directed that defendant’s property be sold at public auction to satisfy plaintiffs mechanic’s lien, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The intention of the parties was fully determinable from the language of the agreement, which was unambiguous (see Kass v Kass, 91 NY2d 554, 566 [1998]). The court thus properly refused to allow extrinsic matter, in the form of a document containing preliminary specifications, into evidence (W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162-163 [1990]). Hearsay testimony of defendant’s lessee, offered for the purpose of proving damages, was also properly disallowed (see Soho Generation of N.Y. v Tri-City Ins. Brokers, 256 AD2d 229, 231-232 [1998]). Concur— Tom, J.P., Saxe, Williams, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

A.C.E. Elevator Co. v. 180 Montague Street, LLC, 11 A.D.3d 294, 782 N.Y.S.2d 716, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

11 A.D.3d 294 (A.C.E. Elevator Co. v. 180 Montague Street, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related