Association for Children with Down Syndrome v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Association for Children with Down Syndrome v. County of Suffolk

262 A.D.2d 340, 689 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6357

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

DecidedJune 7, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 340 (Association for Children with Down Syndrome v. County of Suffolk) 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

Association for Children with Down Syndrome v. County of Suffolk, 262 A.D.2d 340, 689 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6357 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated May 14, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[341]*341Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the provisions of the contract at issue are clear and unambiguous and that in accordance with the plain language of the contract, the plaintiffs failure to timely submit billing vouchers precluded it from receiving the reimbursement it sought (see, Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co., 86 NY2d 543, 548; Automotive Mgt. Group v SRB Mgt. Co., 239 AD2d 450, 451). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Emerson, J.), dated May 14, 1998, which denied its motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

[341]*341Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the provisions of the contract at issue are clear and unambiguous and that in accordance with the plain language of the contract, the plaintiffs failure to timely submit billing vouchers precluded it from receiving the reimbursement it sought (see, Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co., 86 NY2d 543, 548; Automotive Mgt. Group v SRB Mgt. Co., 239 AD2d 450, 451). Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 340, 689 N.Y.S.2d 656, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6357, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/association-for-children-with-down-syndrome-v-county-of-suffolk-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack