Leitman v. Baldwin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leitman v. Baldwin

57 A.D.2d 944, 395 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12214

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

DecidedMay 31, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 944 (Leitman v. Baldwin) 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

Leitman v. Baldwin, 57 A.D.2d 944, 395 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to compel the defendants mortgagees to release certain premises from the lien of a mortgage, and for money damages based upon their refusal to so release the premises, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 4, 1976, which: (1) granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint; and (2) denied their cross motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs-appellants assert as error Special Term’s refused to allow parol evidence to interpret what is alleged to be an “ambiguous” term of the mortgage contract. We agree with Special Term that the language is inescapably clear, unambiguous, and permits but one conclusion as to the intent of the parties (see 4 Williston, Contracts [3d ed], § 609 et seq.).Accordingly, parol evidence cannot be introduced for the purposes of interpretation or construction. Martuscello, J. P., Cohalan, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to compel the defendants mortgagees to release certain premises from the lien of a mortgage, and for money damages based upon their refusal to so release the premises, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated August 4, 1976, which: (1) granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint; and (2) denied their cross motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs-appellants assert as error Special Term’s refused to allow parol evidence to interpret what is alleged to be an “ambiguous” term of the mortgage contract. We agree with Special Term that the language is inescapably clear, unambiguous, and permits but one conclusion as to the intent of the parties (see 4 Williston, Contracts [3d ed], § 609 et seq.).Accordingly, parol evidence cannot be introduced for the purposes of interpretation or construction. Martuscello, J. P., Cohalan, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 944, 395 N.Y.S.2d 87, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leitman-v-baldwin-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack