Potamkin v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Potamkin v. Schwartz

208 A.D.2d 457, 618 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10488

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 457 (Potamkin v. Schwartz) 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

Potamkin v. Schwartz, 208 A.D.2d 457, 618 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J., upon decision of Peter Tom, J.), entered on or about February 1, 1994, which granted plaintiff summary judgment on his cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly found that the stock repurchase agreement in issue is unambiguous, and that parol evidence is therefore inadmissible to show any unstated intentions concerning the financial condition of the company or plaintiff’s participation in its management and promotion of its business (W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162). We also note that defendant was a sophisticated, counseled businessman (see, Chimart Assocs. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 571), whose own attorney drew the clause requiring his repurchase of the shares he sold to plaintiff. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard B. Lowe, III, J., upon decision of Peter Tom, J.), entered on or about February 1, 1994, which granted plaintiff summary judgment on his cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court correctly found that the stock repurchase agreement in issue is unambiguous, and that parol evidence is therefore inadmissible to show any unstated intentions concerning the financial condition of the company or plaintiff’s participation in its management and promotion of its business (W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162). We also note that defendant was a sophisticated, counseled businessman (see, Chimart Assocs. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 571), whose own attorney drew the clause requiring his repurchase of the shares he sold to plaintiff. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Asch, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 457, 618 N.Y.S.2d 217, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potamkin-v-schwartz-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack