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

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 14, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 294 (A.C.E. Elevator Co. v. 180 Montague Street, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 294, 782 N.Y.S.2d 716, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ace-elevator-co-v-180-montague-street-llc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack