Balport Construction Co. v. New York Telephone Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Balport Construction Co. v. New York Telephone Co.

111 A.D.2d 360, 489 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51459

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

DecidedMay 28, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 360 (Balport Construction Co. v. New York Telephone Co.) 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

Balport Construction Co. v. New York Telephone Co., 111 A.D.2d 360, 489 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover the balance due under a written contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Isseks, J.), dated February 6, 1984, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff claims that the terms of the written contract at issue entitle it to receive payment for certain work it performed under the contract. While defendant does not deny that the work was satisfactorily completed, it does contend that the payment for the work performed was included in payment for other work performed. The contract, however, is ambiguous as to whether plaintiff is entitled to separate payment for the work it performed. Accordingly, since there are issues of fact concerning interpretation of the contract, summary judgment may not be granted (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover the balance due under a written contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Isseks, J.), dated February 6, 1984, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Order affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff claims that the terms of the written contract at issue entitle it to receive payment for certain work it performed under the contract. While defendant does not deny that the work was satisfactorily completed, it does contend that the payment for the work performed was included in payment for other work performed. The contract, however, is ambiguous as to whether plaintiff is entitled to separate payment for the work it performed. Accordingly, since there are issues of fact concerning interpretation of the contract, summary judgment may not be granted (see, Andre v Pomeroy, 35 NY2d 361). Weinstein, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 360, 489 N.Y.S.2d 353, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/balport-construction-co-v-new-york-telephone-co-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack