Willoughby Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, LLC v. Webster

31 A.D.3d 537, 818 N.Y.S.2d 590
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 11, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 31 A.D.3d 537 (Willoughby Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, LLC v. Webster) 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
Willoughby Rehabilitation & Health Care Center, LLC v. Webster, 31 A.D.3d 537, 818 N.Y.S.2d 590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Austin J.), entered April 21, 2005, which denied her motion to compel arbitration.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“Where the terms of an agreement are clear and unambiguous, the agreement should be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms without the need to examine extrinsic evidence to determine the parties’ intent” (Royal Sun Alliance Ins. Co. v Travelers Ins. Co., 15 AD3d 563 [2005]; see Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]; W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]; Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc. v Plainedge Union Free School Dist., 12 AD3d 395 [2004]). Whether a writing is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the courts (see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, supra).

[538]*538The arbitration agreement at issue was signed by the defendant and several other individuals who have an interest in the plaintiff corporations. These individuals did not sign on behalf of the plaintiff corporations, and the agreement mentions neither the plaintiff corporations nor any disputes which concern them. Therefore, the agreement unambiguously excludes the plaintiffs as parties thereto, and the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

We do not address the defendant’s remaining arguments, which she raises for the first time on appeal (see New York & Presbyt. Hosp. v Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 5 AD3d 568, 571 [2004]). Miller, J.P., Luciano, Lifson and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Blizzard Cooling, Inc. v. Park Developers & Builders, Inc.
134 A.D.3d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 A.D.3d 537, 818 N.Y.S.2d 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willoughby-rehabilitation-health-care-center-llc-v-webster-nyappdiv-2006.