Hambrecht & Quist Guaranty Finance v. El Coronado Holdings

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hambrecht & Quist Guaranty Finance v. El Coronado Holdings

27 A.D.3d 204, 809 N.Y.S.2d 454

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 2, 2006·Published·Cited by 11 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered January 6, 2005, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CELR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The contract provisions at issue are susceptible of reasonable interpretations supportive of differing outcomes to the parties’ dispute. This being the case, extrinsic evidence is permitted to resolve the ambiguity and determine the intent of the parties at the time of the contract (see Evans v Famous Music Corp., 1 NY3d 452 [2004]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered January 6, 2005, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CELR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The contract provisions at issue are susceptible of reasonable interpretations supportive of differing outcomes to the parties’ dispute. This being the case, extrinsic evidence is permitted to resolve the ambiguity and determine the intent of the parties at the time of the contract (see Evans v Famous Music Corp., 1 NY3d 452 [2004]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Williams, JJ.

Hambrecht & Quist Guaranty Finance v. El Coronado Holdings, 27 A.D.3d 204, 809 N.Y.S.2d 454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

27 A.D.3d 204 (Hambrecht & Quist Guaranty Finance v. El Coronado Holdings) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related