22 Cited authorities

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"
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
Mount Vernon Fire Insurance v. Creative Housing Ltd.
88 N.Y.2d 347 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 256 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that an assault and battery exclusion precluded coverage for a suit for negligent management and supervision of an apartment building stemming from an assault committed by a third party who was not an employee of the insured
Ashwood Capital, Inc. v. OTG Management, Inc.
99 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) Cited 140 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that because the transactions in question fell outside the scope of the subject contract, the contract did not bar the unjust enrichment claim
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
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman, Llp. v. Reade
98 A.D.3d 403 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) Cited 76 times
Holding that an email proposing a fee arrangement, an email asking to have the arrangement "in place" and the email response, "Go," constitute an integrated agreement
Banco Espírito Santo, S.A. v. Concessionária Do Rodoanel Oeste S.A.
100 A.D.3d 100 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012) Cited 71 times
Finding that "commercially sophisticated" plaintiffs could have easily "expressed [their] intent in the language" of the agreement
Telerep v. Int'l Media
74 A.D.3d 401 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) Cited 65 times 1 Legal Analyses
Stating that if "a contract is ambiguous, it cannot be construed as a matter of law, and dismissal under CPLR 3211 is not appropriate"
New York City Off-Track Betting Corp. v. Safe Factory Outlet, Inc.
28 A.D.3d 175 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) Cited 69 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concerning the timeliness of a rejection of goods, the buyer's two-year investigation of goods in its possession, prior to rejecting them, was reasonable where goods were not perishable and the buyer explored several methods of investigation
Unisys Corporation v. Hercules Incorporated
224 A.D.2d 365 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996) Cited 82 times
Noting in context of breach of contract action that "[e]ven where a plaintiff may seek recovery on alternative theories, he must make an election of remedies at trial or upon submission of a motion for summary judgment, the grant of which is the procedural equivalent of a trial"

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.

22 Cited authorities

Holding a "written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms"

Holding that where a contract is unambiguous it will be enforced according to its terms and courts may not add or excise terms

Holding that an assault and battery exclusion precluded coverage for a suit for negligent management and supervision of an apartment building stemming from an assault committed by a third party who was not an employee of the insured

Holding that because the transactions in question fell outside the scope of the subject contract, the contract did not bar the unjust enrichment claim

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

Holding that an email proposing a fee arrangement, an email asking to have the arrangement "in place" and the email response, "Go," constitute an integrated agreement

Finding that "commercially sophisticated" plaintiffs could have easily "expressed [their] intent in the language" of the agreement

Stating that if "a contract is ambiguous, it cannot be construed as a matter of law, and dismissal under CPLR 3211 is not appropriate"

Concerning the timeliness of a rejection of goods, the buyer's two-year investigation of goods in its possession, prior to rejecting them, was reasonable where goods were not perishable and the buyer explored several methods of investigation

Noting in context of breach of contract action that "[e]ven where a plaintiff may seek recovery on alternative theories, he must make an election of remedies at trial or upon submission of a motion for summary judgment, the grant of which is the procedural equivalent of a trial"