Pioneer Transportation Corp. v. Kaladjian

105 A.D.2d 698, 481 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20806
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 5, 1984
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 105 A.D.2d 698 (Pioneer Transportation Corp. v. Kaladjian) 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
Pioneer Transportation Corp. v. Kaladjian, 105 A.D.2d 698, 481 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20806 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to compel respondents to apply the price-indexing provision of section 305 (subd 14, par a, as amd by L 1983, ch 914, § 1) of the Education Law to agreements extending extant contracts between petitioners and respondents for the transportation of school children, executed prior to the effective date of the afore-mentioned amended statute, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.), dated January 17, 1984, which dismissed the proceeding.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements, for the reasons stated in the opinion of Justice Vinik at Special Term.

We add only that there is no merit to petitioners’ argument that the subject extension agreements “contemplated” the enactment of chapter 914 of the Laws of 1983, such that the latter should be deemed applicable thereto for the remainder of their duration. Contract obligations are determined by the law in effect at the time the contract is executed (see Kinney v Kinney, 48 AD2d 1002; 22 NY Jur 2d, Contracts, § 202). In the absence of a clear expression in the contract that such is the parties’ intention, a court may not construe an agreement so that it is modified by a subsequent statutory enactment which changes the rights and obligations of the parties (Kinney v Kinney, supra). No such intention is evinced by the agreements at bar. Gibbons, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Lawrence, JJ., concur. [122 Misc 2d 412.]

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

Related

Clean Earth of North Jersey, Inc. v. Northcoast Maintenance Corp.
142 A.D.3d 1032 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Garal Wholesalers, Ltd. v. Miller Brewing Co.
193 Misc. 2d 630 (New York Supreme Court, 2002)
Huskission v. Sentry Insurance
123 A.D.2d 832 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 A.D.2d 698, 481 N.Y.S.2d 136, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 20806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pioneer-transportation-corp-v-kaladjian-nyappdiv-1984.