Nausch v. AON Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Nausch v. AON Corp.

283 A.D.2d 353, 724 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6577

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

DecidedMay 31, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 353 (Nausch v. AON Corp.) 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

Nausch v. AON Corp., 283 A.D.2d 353, 724 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6577 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered February 22, 2000, dismissing the complaint and imposing costs of $650 to be paid to defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 3, 2000, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the first cause of action, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within appeal from judgment.

The contract, being reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation in relevant part, is ambiguous regarding whether plaintiffs decedent was to be employed at will or for a term of years (TSR Consulting Servs. v Steinhouse, 267 AD2d 25; Levey v Leventhal & Sons, 231 AD2d 877; Myers v Coradian Corp., 92 AD2d 643), thus precluding summary judgment. Insofar as the agreement is ambiguous to this extent, parol evidence may be admissible on the issue. We have considered the remaining contentions of defendants and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered February 22, 2000, dismissing the complaint and imposing costs of $650 to be paid to defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, the complaint reinstated and the matter remanded for further proceedings. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 3, 2000, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denying plaintiffs’ cross motion for partial summary judgment on the first cause of action, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within appeal from judgment.

The contract, being reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation in relevant part, is ambiguous regarding whether plaintiffs decedent was to be employed at will or for a term of years (TSR Consulting Servs. v Steinhouse, 267 AD2d 25; Levey v Leventhal & Sons, 231 AD2d 877; Myers v Coradian Corp., 92 AD2d 643), thus precluding summary judgment. Insofar as the agreement is ambiguous to this extent, parol evidence may be admissible on the issue. We have considered the remaining contentions of defendants and find them to be unavailing. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Ellerin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 353, 724 N.Y.S.2d 864, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nausch-v-aon-corp-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack