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

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 608 (R/S Associates v. New York Job Development Authority) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 608, 722 N.Y.S.2d 396, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3076, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rs-associates-v-new-york-job-development-authority-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack