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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 31, 1977·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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.

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

57 A.D.2d 944 (Leitman v. Baldwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related