§Why CasetextPricing

230 Park Avenue Holdco, LLC, Appellant,v.Kurzman Karelsen & Frank, LLP, et al., Respondents.

Brief

28 Cited authorities

  1. Greenfield v. Philles Records

    98 N.Y.2d 562 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 1,916 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding a "written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms"

  2. Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 538 Madison Realty Co.

    1 N.Y.3d 470 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 666 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no intent to add terms where sophisticated parties could have added a term, but failed to do so

  3. South Road Associates, LLC v. International Business Machines Corp.

    4 N.Y.3d 272 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 408 times
    Holding that the term "premises" in the disputed contract unambiguously referred only to the "interior space" of a leased real estate property based on a reading of the lease "as a whole," which frequently listed the term "premises" separately from things such as "the water tower, appurtenances, land, parking lot and building"

  4. 150 Broadway Assoc. v. Bodner

    14 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 299 times
    Dismissing action pursuant to CPLR 3211 where the terms of the contract unambiguously contradicted the allegations supporting plaintiff's breach of contract claim, "regardless of any extrinsic evidence or self-serving allegations offered by the proponent of the claim"

  5. Mallad v. County Fed. Sav. Loan

    32 N.Y.2d 285 (N.Y. 1973)   Cited 610 times
    In Mallad Constr. Corp. v. County Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n, 32 N.Y.2d 285, 344 N.Y.S.2d 925, 298 N.E.2d 96 (1973), the New York Court of Appeals explained the applicable principles where contractual ambiguities arise in the context of summary judgment motions.

  6. Rowe v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co.

    46 N.Y.2d 62 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 397 times
    Explaining that “a party who asserts the existence of an implied-in-fact covenant bears a heavy burden, for it is not the function of the courts to remake the contract agreed to by the parties, but rather to enforce it as it exists. Thus, a party making such a claim must prove not merely that it would have been better or more sensible to include such a covenant, but rather that the particular unexpressed promise sought to be enforced is in fact implicit in the agreement viewed as a whole. This is especially so where, as here, the implied covenant sought to be recognized and enforced is of a type not favored by the courts.”

  7. Holy Props. v. Cole Prods

    87 N.Y.2d 130 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 237 times
    Holding tenant liable for all monetary obligations arising under the lease, where the lease expressly provided that landlord was under no duty to mitigate damages upon defendant's abandonment of the premises or eviction

  8. Sutton v. East River Savings Bank

    55 N.Y.2d 550 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 337 times
    Explaining that when interpreting a contract, "the aim is a practical interpretation of the expression of the parties to the end that there be a realization of their reasonable expectations"

  9. Freedman v. Chemical Constr

    43 N.Y.2d 260 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 358 times
    Holding § 5-701 did not bar an oral agreement where no provision in the agreement directly or indirectly regulated the time for performance, despite the extreme unlikelihood of its completion within one year

  10. Jefpaul v. Presbyterian Hosp

    61 N.Y.2d 442 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 289 times
    Finding that waiver could "certainly not" be inferred as a matter of law when a lease contained a no-waiver clause