R/S Associates v. New York Job Development Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

R/S Associates v. New York Job Development Authority

281 A.D.2d 608, 722 N.Y.S.2d 396, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3076

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 26, 2001·Published

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated December 17, 1999, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the term “effective cost of funds” is not ambiguous (B & R Children’s Overalls Co. v New York Job Dev. Auth., 257 AD2d 368). As a result, the rules governing the construction of ambiguous contracts were not triggered (see, Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co., 86 NY2d 543, 548; Breed v Insurance Co., 46 NY2d 351, 355).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., Santucci, S. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Berler, J.), dated December 17, 1999, as granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the term “effective cost of funds” is not ambiguous (B & R Children’s Overalls Co. v New York Job Dev. Auth., 257 AD2d 368). As a result, the rules governing the construction of ambiguous contracts were not triggered (see, Matter of Wallace v 600 Partners Co., 86 NY2d 543, 548; Breed v Insurance Co., 46 NY2d 351, 355).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, P. J., Santucci, S. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.

R/S Associates v. New York Job Development Authority, 281 A.D.2d 608, 722 N.Y.S.2d 396, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3076 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 608 (R/S Associates v. New York Job Development Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related