Goldstein v. Plotnicki

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldstein v. Plotnicki

301 A.D.2d 483, 753 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 711

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 301 A.D.2d 483 (Goldstein v. Plotnicki) 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

Goldstein v. Plotnicki, 301 A.D.2d 483, 753 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, [484]*484New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered June 3, 2002, granting petitioner’s motion insofar as to direct compliance with certain provisions of the parties’ settlement agreement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly directed compliance with the unambiguous terms of the parties’ settlement agreement without resort to extrinsic evidence (see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162-163; Unisys Corp. v Hercules Inc., 224 AD2d 365, 367; Sharp v Stavisky, 221 AD2d 216, lv dismissed 87 NY2d 968). The agreement as a whole, including the appraisal process set forth therein, establishes that the parties intended a transfer of title to intellectual property valued at $250,000. Appellant’s argument that the settlement only granted petitioner a license to intellectual property rights until petitioner earned $250,000 is not supported by the agreement which makes no reference to a license and does not temporally limit the rights transferred. If the rights transferred were to be limited to a specific period, language to that effect should have been included in the settlement agreement (see Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, 571-572). In the absence of any ambiguity, the court was not required to consider extrinsic evidence of appellant’s expert, and no evidentiary hearing was required (see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, supra). Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, [484]*484New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered June 3, 2002, granting petitioner’s motion insofar as to direct compliance with certain provisions of the parties’ settlement agreement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly directed compliance with the unambiguous terms of the parties’ settlement agreement without resort to extrinsic evidence (see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162-163; Unisys Corp. v Hercules Inc., 224 AD2d 365, 367; Sharp v Stavisky, 221 AD2d 216, lv dismissed 87 NY2d 968). The agreement as a whole, including the appraisal process set forth therein, establishes that the parties intended a transfer of title to intellectual property valued at $250,000. Appellant’s argument that the settlement only granted petitioner a license to intellectual property rights until petitioner earned $250,000 is not supported by the agreement which makes no reference to a license and does not temporally limit the rights transferred. If the rights transferred were to be limited to a specific period, language to that effect should have been included in the settlement agreement (see Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, 571-572). In the absence of any ambiguity, the court was not required to consider extrinsic evidence of appellant’s expert, and no evidentiary hearing was required (see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, supra). Concur— Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 A.D.2d 483, 753 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-plotnicki-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack