Sound Distributing Corp. v. Richmond

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sound Distributing Corp. v. Richmond

213 A.D.2d 178, 625 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2508

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 7, 1995·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered December 3, 1993, after a jury trial, which, inter alia, found defendants-appellants [179] jointly and severally liable to plaintiff under a guarantee, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly found that the guarantee, which named the corporation as guarantor but was signed by appellants in their individual capacities, was ambiguous, and admitted parol evidence to establish the intent of the parties (see, Sullivan County Wholesalers v Sullivan County Dorms, 59 AD2d 628). The action is plainly one to enforce a contract that is ambiguous, and not, as appellants argue, one to reform a contract because of mistake. We have also reviewed the claims of errors with respect to evidentiary rulings and jury instructions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered December 3, 1993, after a jury trial, which, inter alia, found defendants-appellants [179] jointly and severally liable to plaintiff under a guarantee, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly found that the guarantee, which named the corporation as guarantor but was signed by appellants in their individual capacities, was ambiguous, and admitted parol evidence to establish the intent of the parties (see, Sullivan County Wholesalers v Sullivan County Dorms, 59 AD2d 628). The action is plainly one to enforce a contract that is ambiguous, and not, as appellants argue, one to reform a contract because of mistake. We have also reviewed the claims of errors with respect to evidentiary rulings and jury instructions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Sound Distributing Corp. v. Richmond, 213 A.D.2d 178, 625 N.Y.S.2d 3, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2508 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

213 A.D.2d 178 (Sound Distributing Corp. v. Richmond) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related