W.A. Bayer Realtors, Inc. v. W. E. Pearse, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

W.A. Bayer Realtors, Inc. v. W. E. Pearse, Inc.

256 A.D.2d 1164, 682 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14293

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 31, 1998·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. Because the parties’ agreement is ambiguous and “determination of the intent of the parties depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence or on a choice among reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence,” summary judgment is inappropriate (Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v Wesolowski, 33 NY2d 169, 172).

[1165]*1165(Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Livingston County, Cicoria, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly denied plaintiffs motion and defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment. Because the parties’ agreement is ambiguous and “determination of the intent of the parties depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence or on a choice among reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence,” summary judgment is inappropriate (Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v Wesolowski, 33 NY2d 169, 172).

[1165]*1165(Appeals from Order of Supreme Court, Livingston County, Cicoria, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Hayes, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

W.A. Bayer Realtors, Inc. v. W. E. Pearse, Inc., 256 A.D.2d 1164, 682 N.Y.S.2d 363, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

256 A.D.2d 1164 (W.A. Bayer Realtors, Inc. v. W. E. Pearse, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related