Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. LP v. Praxair, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. LP v. Praxair, Inc.

35 A.D.3d 188, 826 N.Y.S.2d 219

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

DecidedDecember 7, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 188 (Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. LP v. Praxair, Inc.) 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

Air Liquide Large Industries U.S. LP v. Praxair, Inc., 35 A.D.3d 188, 826 N.Y.S.2d 219 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

[189]*189Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered July 10, 2006, which, inter alia, upon a search of the record, awarded summary judgment in favor of defendant, declaring that plaintiffs notice of termination was not proper and otherwise dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly concluded that article 16.1 of the argon supply agreement precluded notice of termination until on or after September 1, 2006, and thus, that plaintiffs notice of termination, dated July 26, 2005, was ineffective. In reaching this conclusion, the motion court adopted an interpretation of the disputed provision consistent with ordinary usage and the principle of noscitur a sociis (see Popkin v Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 48 AD2d 46, 48 [1975]).

Even if the disputed provision were ambiguous, the outcome would be the same, since the undisputed evidence supports defendant Praxair’s interpretation. The record, containing letters, e-mails and affidavits from the original parties who negotiated and signed the amended agreement, indicates that termination of the amended agreement was prohibited prior to September 1, 2007, i.e., 12 months after notice of termination, which could not be given until on or after September 1, 2006.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

[189]*189Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J.), entered July 10, 2006, which, inter alia, upon a search of the record, awarded summary judgment in favor of defendant, declaring that plaintiffs notice of termination was not proper and otherwise dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court correctly concluded that article 16.1 of the argon supply agreement precluded notice of termination until on or after September 1, 2006, and thus, that plaintiffs notice of termination, dated July 26, 2005, was ineffective. In reaching this conclusion, the motion court adopted an interpretation of the disputed provision consistent with ordinary usage and the principle of noscitur a sociis (see Popkin v Security Mut. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 48 AD2d 46, 48 [1975]).

Even if the disputed provision were ambiguous, the outcome would be the same, since the undisputed evidence supports defendant Praxair’s interpretation. The record, containing letters, e-mails and affidavits from the original parties who negotiated and signed the amended agreement, indicates that termination of the amended agreement was prohibited prior to September 1, 2007, i.e., 12 months after notice of termination, which could not be given until on or after September 1, 2006.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.E, Marlow, Williams, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 188, 826 N.Y.S.2d 219, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/air-liquide-large-industries-us-lp-v-praxair-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack