Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Series 2006-RM4 v. Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Series 2006-RM4 v. Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc.

118 A.D.3d 555, 987 N.Y.S.2d 158

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

DecidedJune 17, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 118 A.D.3d 555 (Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Series 2006-RM4 v. Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc.) 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

Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Series 2006-RM4 v. Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc., 118 A.D.3d 555, 987 N.Y.S.2d 158 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered September 28, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims as against Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[556]*556We affirm, for reasons different from those given by the motion court. The contract provision at issue is ambiguous, and therefore its meaning cannot be determined without reference to extrinsic evidence (see Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 572-573 [1986]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered September 28, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims as against Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[556]*556We affirm, for reasons different from those given by the motion court. The contract provision at issue is ambiguous, and therefore its meaning cannot be determined without reference to extrinsic evidence (see Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 572-573 [1986]).

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 A.D.3d 555, 987 N.Y.S.2d 158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merrill-lynch-mortgage-investors-trust-series-2006-rm4-v-merrill-lynch-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack