Lamar Exploration Corp. v. Masterson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lamar Exploration Corp. v. Masterson

188 A.D.2d 1068, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14948

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 1068 (Lamar Exploration Corp. v. Masterson) 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

Lamar Exploration Corp. v. Masterson, 188 A.D.2d 1068, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14948 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint. The language in articles 2 and 3 of the parties’ agreement is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations and, therefore, is ambiguous (see, Super Glue Corp. v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 159 AD2d 68, 72, lv denied 77 NY2d 801). Because plaintiff submitted extrinsic proof to resolve that ambiguity, a question of fact was presented for the jury’s determination and summary judgment was properly denied (see, Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 32 NY2d 285, 291; Allied Clove Lakes Co. v Demisay, 74 AD2d 466, 468-470). Additionally, there exist questions of fact precluding the granting of summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs complaint. The language in articles 2 and 3 of the parties’ agreement is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations and, therefore, is ambiguous (see, Super Glue Corp. v Avis Rent A Car Sys., 159 AD2d 68, 72, lv denied 77 NY2d 801). Because plaintiff submitted extrinsic proof to resolve that ambiguity, a question of fact was presented for the jury’s determination and summary judgment was properly denied (see, Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 32 NY2d 285, 291; Allied Clove Lakes Co. v Demisay, 74 AD2d 466, 468-470). Additionally, there exist questions of fact precluding the granting of summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Francis, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Boomer, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 1068, 592 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14948, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamar-exploration-corp-v-masterson-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack