Almodovar v. New Dawn Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Almodovar v. New Dawn Development Corp.

207 A.D.2d 367, 616 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8210

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

DecidedAugust 8, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 367 (Almodovar v. New Dawn Development Corp.) 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

Almodovar v. New Dawn Development Corp., 207 A.D.2d 367, 616 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Bronx New Dawn Renaissance VI and Solomon/Weinberg Equities appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), dated September 25, 1992, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on his first cause of action, and denied so much of their cross motion as was for summary judgment on the first cause of action.

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on his first cause of action, and that branch of the motion is denied; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The reimbursement agreement at issue contains inherent ambiguities. Accordingly, a trial is warranted to ascertain the parties’ intent regarding the agreement and whether the plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of $20,000. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants Bronx New Dawn Renaissance VI and Solomon/Weinberg Equities appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Friedmann, J.), dated September 25, 1992, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on his first cause of action, and denied so much of their cross motion as was for summary judgment on the first cause of action.

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was for summary judgment on his first cause of action, and that branch of the motion is denied; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The reimbursement agreement at issue contains inherent ambiguities. Accordingly, a trial is warranted to ascertain the parties’ intent regarding the agreement and whether the plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of $20,000. Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 367, 616 N.Y.S.2d 214, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almodovar-v-new-dawn-development-corp-nyappdiv-1994.