Winston v. Mezzanine Investments, L.P.
203 A.D.2d 206, 612 N.Y.S.2d 854
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 28, 1994·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered August 3, 1993, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
We agree with the IAS Court that the word "cumulative”, as used in the definition of the term "Priority Return” in the limited partnership agreement, is ambiguous and its intended meaning cannot be construed as a matter of law. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Winston v. Mezzanine Investments, L.P., 203 A.D.2d 206, 612 N.Y.S.2d 854 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).
203 A.D.2d 206 (Winston v. Mezzanine Investments, L.P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Winston v. Mezzanine Investments, L.P.
170 Misc. 2d 241 (New York Supreme Court, 1996)