Summary
affirming trial court's decision "that the terms of a settlement agreement . . . were sufficiently ambiguous [so as] to warrant the introduction of extrinsic evidence, despite the existence of a merger clause"
Summary of this case from In re Violation of Rule 28(D)Opinion
June 15, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
The trial court properly determined that the terms of the settlement agreement between the parties were sufficiently ambiguous to warrant the introduction of extrinsic evidence, despite the existence of a merger clause ( see, Concoff v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 4 N.Y.2d 630), and in light of the trial testimony, particularly that evidencing the parties' previous conduct under the same right of first refusal provision, the court properly found that defendants' offer to purchase the plaintiffs' property, for an amount 4% less than the competing purchaser's offer, did not constitute a "matching offer" under the agreement. Also proper was the court's refusal to grant a mid-trial continuance to permit defendant Handelsman to testify, since the trial date had been set almost three months earlier and defendant's inability to appear was attributable to the fact that he was on a vacation cruise. Defendants' present claims that the trial court improperly interjected itself into the proceedings are not preserved for our review and, in any event, are unpersuasive ( see, Moody v. Sun, 127 A.D.2d 570, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 604).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Tom, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.