§Why CasetextPricing

Dryden Mutual Insurance Company, Appellant,v.Stanley Goessl, et al., Defendants, AP Daino & Plumbing, Inc. et al., Respondents.

Brief

51 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. W.W.W. Assocs v. Giancontieri

    77 N.Y.2d 157 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 2,206 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that extrinsic evidence was immaterial, in part because the contract plainly manifested intent that all prior understandings were merged into the contract, which expressed the parties' full agreement

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

    1 N.Y.3d 470 (N.Y. 2004)   Cited 669 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding no intent to add terms where sophisticated parties could have added a term, but failed to do so

  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. White v. Continental Cas. Co.

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 9310 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 383 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding if an insurance contract on its face is reasonably susceptible of only one meaning a court is not free to alter it

  6. BP Air Conditioning Corp. v. One Beacon Insurance Group

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 5581 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 345 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a duty to defend an additional insured is not contingent on there having been an adjudication of liability giving rise to a duty to indemnify the additional insured"

  7. Thompson v. Grumman Corp.

    78 N.Y.2d 553 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 523 times
    Holding employee to be “special employee” where general employer loaned employee to special employer who “exerted comprehensive control over every facet of his work” notwithstanding fact that general employer provided paychecks and Workers Compensation coverage

  8. Riverside South Planning Corp. v. CRP/Extell Riverside, L.P.

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 8675 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 299 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a contract is unambiguous it will be enforced according to its terms and courts may not add or excise terms

  9. Schron v. Troutman Sanders LLP

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 952 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 252 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming a grant of New York state court motion to dismiss based on the application of the parol evidence rule

  10. Wallace v. 600 Partners Co.

    86 N.Y.2d 543 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 359 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "[t]he rules governing the construction of ambiguous contracts are not triggered unless the court first finds an ambiguity"