Reisshold Developers, Inc. v. Arthur Walkill Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reisshold Developers, Inc. v. Arthur Walkill Corp.

87 A.D.2d 815, 449 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16269

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

DecidedApril 5, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.2d 815 (Reisshold Developers, Inc. v. Arthur Walkill 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

Reisshold Developers, Inc. v. Arthur Walkill Corp., 87 A.D.2d 815, 449 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16269 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a declaratory judgment, defendant Citibank, N. A., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rubin, J.), dated June 10, 1981, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion for summary judgment granted, and it is declared that the agreement in question does not provide for a credit against, or reduction of, plaintiff’s indebtedness of the mortgage principal. The modification agreement in question is unambiguous and complete. It is susceptible to unequivocal interpretation on its own terms, leaving no questions of fact on the record. The underlying agreements make it clear that the credits of $517 for each of the first 90 sewer connections are credits against the release price and are not credits against the mortgage principal. Summary judgment for Citibank, N. A., is thus appropriate. (See Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 32 NY2d 285, 291.) Gulotta, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a declaratory judgment, defendant Citibank, N. A., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rubin, J.), dated June 10, 1981, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion for summary judgment granted, and it is declared that the agreement in question does not provide for a credit against, or reduction of, plaintiff’s indebtedness of the mortgage principal. The modification agreement in question is unambiguous and complete. It is susceptible to unequivocal interpretation on its own terms, leaving no questions of fact on the record. The underlying agreements make it clear that the credits of $517 for each of the first 90 sewer connections are credits against the release price and are not credits against the mortgage principal. Summary judgment for Citibank, N. A., is thus appropriate. (See Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn., 32 NY2d 285, 291.) Gulotta, J. P., Thompson, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 815, 449 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reisshold-developers-inc-v-arthur-walkill-corp-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack