Boasberg v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

155 A.D.2d 989
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 15, 1989
DocketAppeal No. 1
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 155 A.D.2d 989 (Boasberg v. Weyerhaeuser 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
Boasberg v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 155 A.D.2d 989 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: The trial court did not err in its interpretation of the contract terms or in defining those terms for the jury. Where the terms of an agreement are unambiguous, the interpretation of the contract is a matter for the court to decide and resort to extrinsic matter is unnecessary and improper (see, Teitelhaum Holdings v Gold, 48 NY2d 51, 56). In the subject case, the court properly interpreted the terms of paragraph 8 of the lease consistent with their plain and ordinary meaning.

Defendant limited its appeal to a specific portion of the judgment. Its present claims regarding expiration or cancellation of the lease are not properly before us. Finally, plaintiff conceded on oral argument that material submitted in the Appendix to his brief was not part of the record. Accordingly, we grant defendant’s motion to strike that Appendix. (Appeal [990]*990from judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Notaro, J.— measure of damages.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

Boasberg v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
155 A.D.2d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 A.D.2d 989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boasberg-v-weyerhaeuser-co-nyappdiv-1989.