Crenulated Co. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crenulated Co. v. City of New York

244 A.D.2d 191, 664 N.Y.S.2d 25

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

DecidedNovember 13, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.D.2d 191 (Crenulated Co. v. City of New York) 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

Crenulated Co. v. City of New York, 244 A.D.2d 191, 664 N.Y.S.2d 25 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered September 30, 1996, which granted third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly characterized the claims asserted in the main action as involving alleged defective workmanship by particular contractors and, thereupon, properly dismissed the third-party complaint. Giving the language of the parties’ agreement its plain meaning (see, American Express Bank v Uniroyal, Inc., 164 AD2d 275, 277, lv denied 77 NY2d 807), the applicable portion of section 4.13, providing that the third-party defendant “shall not be responsible for the cost of correcting defective Work performed by Contractors” is unambiguous (see, W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162). Mere assertion that contractual language is ambiguous is insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see, Lake Constr. & Dev. Corp. v City of New York, 211 AD2d 514, 515). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jane Solomon, J.), entered September 30, 1996, which granted third-party defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court properly characterized the claims asserted in the main action as involving alleged defective workmanship by particular contractors and, thereupon, properly dismissed the third-party complaint. Giving the language of the parties’ agreement its plain meaning (see, American Express Bank v Uniroyal, Inc., 164 AD2d 275, 277, lv denied 77 NY2d 807), the applicable portion of section 4.13, providing that the third-party defendant “shall not be responsible for the cost of correcting defective Work performed by Contractors” is unambiguous (see, W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162). Mere assertion that contractual language is ambiguous is insufficient to raise an issue of fact (see, Lake Constr. & Dev. Corp. v City of New York, 211 AD2d 514, 515). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Nardelli, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 191, 664 N.Y.S.2d 25, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crenulated-co-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack