From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tramco Industries v. Broad Hollow Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 23, 1968
30 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Opinion

May 23, 1968


Order, entered February 7, 1968, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to the plaintiff-appellant, and the motion granted. Parol evidence is admissible to resolve an ambiguity, not to create one. The tax clause is clear both in its language and its application. Its interpretation is a question of law for the court. The year 1966/67 was the "first year after the full assessed value * * * has been determined". ( Tobin v. Union News Co., 18 A.D.2d 243, affd. 13 N.Y.2d 1155.)

Concur — Botein, P.J., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McGivern and McNally, JJ.


Summaries of

Tramco Industries v. Broad Hollow Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
May 23, 1968
30 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)
Case details for

Tramco Industries v. Broad Hollow Associates

Case Details

Full title:TRAMCO INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. BROAD HOLLOW ASSOCIATES…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: May 23, 1968

Citations

30 A.D.2d 522 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968)

Citing Cases

Baldt Corporation v. Tabet Mfg. Co.

However, where an ambiguity is found to exist, parol evidence is admissible to resolve the ambiguity. Nathan…

Acli International Commodity Services, Inc. v. Banque Populaire Suisse

See Banque Memo, Ex. 1. And where the language of a contract is clear, a party may not create ambiguity…