Yanuck v. Simon Paston & Sons Agency, Inc.

209 A.D.2d 207, 618 N.Y.S.2d 295
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 3, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 209 A.D.2d 207 (Yanuck v. Simon Paston & Sons Agency, Inc.) 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
Yanuck v. Simon Paston & Sons Agency, Inc., 209 A.D.2d 207, 618 N.Y.S.2d 295 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly [208]*208Cohen, J.), entered April 28, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 dismissing portions of the first and third causes of action of plaintiffs complaint and which denied plaintiffs cross motion for, inter alia, summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly determined that the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment were precluded by triable issues of fact with respect to whether the parties intended their Sales Agreement to extinguish plaintiffs accrued claims for profit sharing and participation income under the prior Joint Venture Agreement. The Sales Agreement, while referring to certain provisions of the prior Joint Venture Agreement, is nevertheless silent as to the plaintiffs accrued claims to profit sharing and participation income and therefore susceptible to the parties’ varying interpretations. The parties sharply dispute whether they, in fact, intended the Sales Agreement to extinguish the plaintiffs accrued claims to profit sharing and participation inc%ne under the Joint Venture Agreement.

Although on a motion for summary judgment based upon a written contract, the construction of an unambiguous contract is for the court to pass on, and circumstances extrinsic to the agreement or varying interpretations of the contract provisions will not be considered when the intention of the parties can be gathered from the instrument itself (W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162-163), nevertheless, where, as here, interpretation of contract terms or provisions is susceptible to at least two reasonable interpretations, and intent must be gleaned from disputed evidence or from inferences outside the written words, it becomes an issue of fact that must be resolved by trial (Amusement Bus. Underwriters v American Intl. Group, 66 NY2d 878, 880-881). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Related

35 W. Realty Co., LLC v. Booston LLC
2019 NY Slip Op 2831 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Wilder v. World of Boxing LLC
310 F. Supp. 3d 426 (S.D. Illinois, 2018)
Intelsat USA Sales Corp. v. Juch-Tech, Inc.
52 F. Supp. 3d 52 (District of Columbia, 2014)
JJLG Motors, Inc. v. SMS-Retail Corona
41 Misc. 3d 1036 (New York Supreme Court, 2013)
82-11 Queens Boulevard Realty, Corp. v. Sunoco, Inc. (R & M)
951 F. Supp. 2d 376 (E.D. New York, 2013)
Riverside South Planning Corp. v. CRP/Extell Riverside
60 A.D.3d 61 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Norman Bobrow & Co. v. Theory, LLC
51 A.D.3d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Dermot Co. v. 200 Haven Co.
41 A.D.3d 188 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
HSBC Bank USA v. Bank of New England
364 F.3d 355 (First Circuit, 2004)
A.M. Construction Enterprises v. Haugen
2 A.D.3d 547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Goldstein v. AccuScan, Inc.
307 A.D.2d 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Lerer v. City of New York
301 A.D.2d 577 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Roemer & Featherstonhaugh, P. C. v. Featherstonhaugh
274 A.D.2d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Reiner v. Wenig
269 A.D.2d 379 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Dobco, Inc. v. Facilities Development Corp.
263 A.D.2d 592 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
In re the Liquidation of Ideal Mutual Insurance
231 A.D.2d 59 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Besicorp Group, Inc. v. Enowitz
235 A.D.2d 761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Drapeau v. Joy Technologies, Inc.
670 A.2d 165 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
209 A.D.2d 207, 618 N.Y.S.2d 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yanuck-v-simon-paston-sons-agency-inc-nyappdiv-1994.