§Why CasetextPricing

Walter R. Beardslee,, et al., Respondents,v.Inflection Energy, LLC, et al., Appellants.

Brief

41 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Beal Sav. Bank v. Sommer

    8 N.Y.3d 318 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 547 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a contract should not be interpreted so as to render any portion of it meaningless

  3. Bank of New York v. First Millennium, Inc.

    607 F.3d 905 (2d Cir. 2010)   Cited 488 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(D) "bars only claims that could be brought under [FIRREA’s] administrative procedures"

  4. Kass v. Kass

    91 N.Y.2d 554 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 552 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the parties’ agreement controlled

  5. Cifarelli v. Village of Babylon

    93 F.3d 47 (2d Cir. 1996)   Cited 435 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering a new affidavit submitted by a defendant on reply inasmuch as plaintiff was “fully aware prior to the defendants' reply” of the issue discussed in the affidavit

  6. Kel Kim Corp. v. Central Markets, Inc.

    70 N.Y.2d 900 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 333 times   44 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the lessee's inability to procure and maintain liability coverage "could have been foreseen and guarded against when it specifically undertook that obligation in the lease," and therefore rejecting defendant's impossibility defense

  7. In re Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Entech, Inc.

    100 N.Y.2d 352 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 197 times
    Holding claims that seller breached representations and warranties that its closing balance sheet was prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP were subject to resolution by the courts, not arbitration

  8. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. RJR Nabisco, Inc.

    906 F.2d 884 (2d Cir. 1990)   Cited 257 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Noting that the court should not find ambiguity based on the interpretation of one party to a contract, where that interpretation would “ ‘strain the contract language beyond its reasonable and ordinary meaning’ ”

  9. Crown IT Services, Inc. v. Koval-Olsen

    11 A.D.3d 263 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 125 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding a restrictive covenant reasonable in time and area; it prohibited defendant from servicing plaintiff's clients for one year in same area where prior service was provided

  10. LaBarte v. Seneca Resources Corp.

    285 A.D.2d 974 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 71 times
    Holding that a claim for a breach of fiduciary duty may be "separate and distinct from . . . contractual relationship" between the parties

  11. Section 617.3 - General rules

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6 § 617.3   Cited 165 times

    (a) No agency involved in an action may undertake, fund or approve the action until it has complied with the provisions of SEQR. A project sponsor may not commence any physical alteration related to an action until the provisions of SEQR have been complied with. The only exception to this is provided under section 617.5(c) (24), (27), and (34) of this Part. An involved agency may not issue its findings and decision on an action if it knows any other involved agency has determined that the action