Rosenberg v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenberg v. Cohen

289 A.D.2d 156, 734 N.Y.S.2d 441, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12366

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 156 (Rosenberg v. Cohen) 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

Rosenberg v. Cohen, 289 A.D.2d 156, 734 N.Y.S.2d 441, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered November 22, 2000, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his cause of action for breach of contract to the extent of awarding him $60,000, and directed a hearing on whether plaintiff is entitled to additional damages under that cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no ambiguity in the contract term providing for the return of the amount of plaintiff’s initial investment in defendants’ corporation upon his termination by defendants, and the motion court correctly found that plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of contract sought damages that included the $60,000 amount of such investment. However, the additional contract term providing for payment of “25% of stock and profit” to plaintiff is ambiguous, and a hearing is required to ascertain the parties’ intent in that regard. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered November 22, 2000, which, insofar as appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his cause of action for breach of contract to the extent of awarding him $60,000, and directed a hearing on whether plaintiff is entitled to additional damages under that cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

There is no ambiguity in the contract term providing for the return of the amount of plaintiff’s initial investment in defendants’ corporation upon his termination by defendants, and the motion court correctly found that plaintiff’s first cause of action for breach of contract sought damages that included the $60,000 amount of such investment. However, the additional contract term providing for payment of “25% of stock and profit” to plaintiff is ambiguous, and a hearing is required to ascertain the parties’ intent in that regard. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Andrias, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 156, 734 N.Y.S.2d 441, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-cohen-nyappdiv-2001.