Canavan v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Canavan v. Chase Manhattan Bank

278 A.D.2d 352, 718 N.Y.S.2d 617, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13184

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 352 (Canavan v. Chase Manhattan Bank) 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

Canavan v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 278 A.D.2d 352, 718 N.Y.S.2d 617, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13184 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered August 10, 1999, which, upon granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiffs case, is in favor of the defendant and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts” (W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162). A contract should be read as a whole (see, W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, supra, at 162) and interpreted so as to give effect to the intention in the unequivocal language employed (see, Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co., 86 NY2d 543, 548; Breed v Insurance Co., 46 NY2d 351, 355; Matter of Building A Rainbow Realty Corp. v Flushing Sav. Bank, 241 AD2d 520, 521).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the portion of the mortgage loan agreement which sets forth how payments are to be allocated is not ambiguous. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, dismissing the complaint. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered August 10, 1999, which, upon granting the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiffs case, is in favor of the defendant and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

“Whether or not a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts” (W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162). A contract should be read as a whole (see, W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, supra, at 162) and interpreted so as to give effect to the intention in the unequivocal language employed (see, Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co., 86 NY2d 543, 548; Breed v Insurance Co., 46 NY2d 351, 355; Matter of Building A Rainbow Realty Corp. v Flushing Sav. Bank, 241 AD2d 520, 521).

Contrary to the plaintiffs contentions, the portion of the mortgage loan agreement which sets forth how payments are to be allocated is not ambiguous. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, dismissing the complaint. Altman, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 352, 718 N.Y.S.2d 617, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canavan-v-chase-manhattan-bank-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack