§Why CasetextPricing

The Bank of New York Mellon, solely as Securities Administrator for J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-WMC4, Respondent,v.WMC Mortgage, LLC, Defendant, J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corporation, et al., Appellants.

Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. Greenfield v. Philles Records

    98 N.Y.2d 562 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 1,915 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. 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

  3. Reiss v. Financial Performance Corporation

    97 N.Y.2d 195 (N.Y. 2001)   Cited 374 times
    Holding courts "may not by construction add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used and thereby make a new contract for the parties under the guise of interpreting the writing."

  4. Brad H. v. City of New York et al

    17 N.Y.3d 180 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 187 times
    Noting that where a contract's language is "written so imperfectly that it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation," it is deemed to be ambiguous.

  5. Two Guys v. S.F.R. Realty Associates

    63 N.Y.2d 396 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 288 times
    Recognizing that New York courts interpreting contracts should "avoid an interpretation that would leave contractual clauses meaningless"

  6. Uribe v. the Merchants Bank of N.Y

    91 N.Y.2d 336 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 156 times
    Holding that the specific customs and practices of a particular industry "should not be imputed to the average merchant and should not supersede the more generally applicable rules" that governed the interpretation of the contract at issue

  7. Kolbe v. Tibbetts

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 8290 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 88 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting interpretation that "both conflicts with the most natural reading of the sentence and renders meaningless the [subject contractual] provision"

  8. Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Turner Constr. Co.

    2 N.Y.2d 456 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 364 times
    Stating that an interpretation of a contract should not "strain the contract language beyond its reasonable and ordinary meaning"

  9. Salvano v. Merrill Lynch

    85 N.Y.2d 173 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 112 times
    Holding with respect to contractual agreement regarding arbitration, that court's role is “limited to interpretation and enforcement of the terms agreed to by the parties”

  10. Wells v. Shearson Lehman

    72 N.Y.2d 11 (N.Y. 1988)   Cited 120 times
    Holding that court must determine intent of parties by reference to language of release, turning to extrinsic evidence only when it determines as a matter of law that terms are ambiguous