Signal Capital Holdings Corp. v. Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Signal Capital Holdings Corp. v. Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC

101 A.D.3d 488, 954 N.Y.2d 871

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.3d 488 (Signal Capital Holdings Corp. v. Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC) 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

Signal Capital Holdings Corp. v. Banc of America Leasing & Capital, LLC, 101 A.D.3d 488, 954 N.Y.2d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

This dispute over the meaning of the ambiguous contract term “the date of scheduled expiration of the Leases” does not fall within the parties’ narrow alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clause providing for an independent financial professional to verify certain calculations based on a dollar figure for rental income as of that date (see McDonnell Douglas Fin. Corp. v Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 858 F2d 825 [2d Cir 1988]). The focus of the ADR clause is a mathematical calculation; contract interpretation would be outside the expertise of the independent accountant acting as verifier (see Fit Tech, Inc. v Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 374 F3d 1, 8 [1st Cir 2004]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Román, JJ.

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

This dispute over the meaning of the ambiguous contract term “the date of scheduled expiration of the Leases” does not fall within the parties’ narrow alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clause providing for an independent financial professional to verify certain calculations based on a dollar figure for rental income as of that date (see McDonnell Douglas Fin. Corp. v Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., 858 F2d 825 [2d Cir 1988]). The focus of the ADR clause is a mathematical calculation; contract interpretation would be outside the expertise of the independent accountant acting as verifier (see Fit Tech, Inc. v Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp., 374 F3d 1, 8 [1st Cir 2004]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.3d 488, 954 N.Y.2d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/signal-capital-holdings-corp-v-banc-of-america-leasing-capital-llc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack