Wallack v. Union-Transport Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wallack v. Union-Transport Corp.

275 A.D.2d 708, 713 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9176

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 708 (Wallack v. Union-Transport Corp.) 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

Wallack v. Union-Transport Corp., 275 A.D.2d 708, 713 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated May 10, 1999, which, inter alia, upon renewal, granted [709]*709that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract, and adhered to so much of a prior determination made in an order of the same court dated September 9, 1996, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The court properly found that a term in the written agreement between the parties was ambiguous (see, Van Wagner Adv. Corp. v S & M Enters., 67 NY2d 186). Accordingly, the use of extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties was appropriate (see, First Dev. Corp. v Delco Plainview Realty Assocs., 194 AD2d 711).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Friedmann, Luciano 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 defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated May 10, 1999, which, inter alia, upon renewal, granted [709]*709that branch of the plaintiffs’ cross motion which was for summary judgment on the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract, and adhered to so much of a prior determination made in an order of the same court dated September 9, 1996, as denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The court properly found that a term in the written agreement between the parties was ambiguous (see, Van Wagner Adv. Corp. v S & M Enters., 67 NY2d 186). Accordingly, the use of extrinsic evidence to determine the intent of the parties was appropriate (see, First Dev. Corp. v Delco Plainview Realty Assocs., 194 AD2d 711).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Friedmann, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 708, 713 N.Y.S.2d 290, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallack-v-union-transport-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack