Broadwell America, Inc. v. Bram Will El

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Broadwell America, Inc. v. Bram Will El

7 A.D.3d 411, 776 N.Y.S.2d 483, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7107

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

DecidedMay 20, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 411 (Broadwell America, Inc. v. Bram Will El) 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

Broadwell America, Inc. v. Bram Will El, 7 A.D.3d 411, 776 N.Y.S.2d 483, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula J. Omansky, J), entered March 6, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered September 15, 2003, which granted plaintiffs motion for clarification of the prior order and adhered to its determination that plaintiff was not entitled to a reduction in the purchase price or down payment for the premises, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The commercially reasonable meaning of the contract was that it was merely an option to purchase. The motion court properly gave effect to the limitation of remedies provisions in denying a reduction in the purchase price based on the sellers’ alleged misrepresentations (see Chelsea v Seventh Chelsea Assoc., 304 AD2d 498 [2003]; cf. 9 Bros. Bldg. Supply Corp. v Buonamicia, 299 AD2d 529 [2002]), and declined to rewrite the contract to include the term sought by plaintiff (see Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 573 [1986]). We have reviewed plaintiffs other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Paula J. Omansky, J), entered March 6, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered September 15, 2003, which granted plaintiffs motion for clarification of the prior order and adhered to its determination that plaintiff was not entitled to a reduction in the purchase price or down payment for the premises, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The commercially reasonable meaning of the contract was that it was merely an option to purchase. The motion court properly gave effect to the limitation of remedies provisions in denying a reduction in the purchase price based on the sellers’ alleged misrepresentations (see Chelsea v Seventh Chelsea Assoc., 304 AD2d 498 [2003]; cf. 9 Bros. Bldg. Supply Corp. v Buonamicia, 299 AD2d 529 [2002]), and declined to rewrite the contract to include the term sought by plaintiff (see Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 573 [1986]). We have reviewed plaintiffs other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 411, 776 N.Y.S.2d 483, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/broadwell-america-inc-v-bram-will-el-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack