Goldstein v. AccuScan, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals

Goldstein v. AccuScan, Inc.

815 N.E.2d 657, 2 N.Y.3d 811, 782 N.Y.S.2d 50, 2 N.Y. 811, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 1315

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 3, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 815 N.E.2d 657 (Goldstein v. AccuScan, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldstein v. AccuScan, Inc., 815 N.E.2d 657, 2 N.Y.3d 811, 782 N.Y.S.2d 50, 2 N.Y. 811, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 1315 (N.Y. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

“[W]hen parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms” (Signature Realty, Inc. v Tallman (2 NY3d 810 [decided today], quoting R/S Assoc, v New York Job Dev. Auth., 98 NY2d 29, 32 [2002]). The parties’ agreement states that AccuScan, Inc. shall pay its consultant, Amnon Goldstein, “10% of all amounts received” by AccuScan in excess of $4 million in settlements obtained or license fees awarded regarding certain patents. AccuScan argues that “all amounts received,” in fact, means all amounts received net of attorneys’ fees. As the Appellate Division correctly observed, however, the contract’s clear language does not admit of this qualification (307 AD2d 913, 914 [2d Dept 2003]). Finally, the existence of an attorney’s charging lien does not alter AccuScan’s contractual obligation to Goldstein.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

“[W]hen parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms” (Signature Realty, Inc. v Tallman (2 NY3d 810 [decided today], quoting R/S Assoc, v New York Job Dev. Auth., 98 NY2d 29, 32 [2002]). The parties’ agreement states that AccuScan, Inc. shall pay its consultant, Amnon Goldstein, “10% of all amounts received” by AccuScan in excess of $4 million in settlements obtained or license fees awarded regarding certain patents. AccuScan argues that “all amounts received,” in fact, means all amounts received net of attorneys’ fees. As the Appellate Division correctly observed, however, the contract’s clear language does not admit of this qualification (307 AD2d 913, 914 [2d Dept 2003]). Finally, the existence of an attorney’s charging lien does not alter AccuScan’s contractual obligation to Goldstein.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

815 N.E.2d 657, 2 N.Y.3d 811, 782 N.Y.S.2d 50, 2 N.Y. 811, 2004 N.Y. LEXIS 1315, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-accuscan-inc-ny-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack