V.C. Vitanza Sons, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

V.C. Vitanza Sons, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority

7 A.D.3d 398, 776 N.Y.S.2d 472, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6973

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 18, 2004·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about October 2, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion and “cross motion” for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In interpreting a contract, the plain meaning of words and phrases should be determined and the language construed so as to give full meaning and effect to all provisions of the agreement (American Express Bank v Uniroyal, Inc., 164 AD2d 275, 277 [1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 807 [1991]). Here, the plain and unambiguous language of the agreements established that the parties intended a flat fee would be paid for monthly inspections of “buildings” having compactor room sprinklers or standpipes, and not for inspections of the individual systems within each building.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find [399] them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about October 2, 2003, which denied plaintiffs motion and “cross motion” for summary judgment and granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In interpreting a contract, the plain meaning of words and phrases should be determined and the language construed so as to give full meaning and effect to all provisions of the agreement (American Express Bank v Uniroyal, Inc., 164 AD2d 275, 277 [1990], lv denied 77 NY2d 807 [1991]). Here, the plain and unambiguous language of the agreements established that the parties intended a flat fee would be paid for monthly inspections of “buildings” having compactor room sprinklers or standpipes, and not for inspections of the individual systems within each building.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find [399] them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Ellerin and Williams, JJ.

V.C. Vitanza Sons, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority, 7 A.D.3d 398, 776 N.Y.S.2d 472, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

7 A.D.3d 398 (V.C. Vitanza Sons, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related