§Why CasetextPricing

JFK Holding Company LLC, et al., Respondents,v.City of New York, et al., Defendants, The Salvation Army, Appellant.

Brief

52 Cited authorities

  1. EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

    5 N.Y.3d 11 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 2,168 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that underwriter of initial public offering had fiduciary duty to disclose to issuer its "compensation arrangements with its customers," whereby it was to receive percentage of profits generated in post-offering resales

  2. W.W.W. Assocs v. Giancontieri

    77 N.Y.2d 157 (N.Y. 1990)   Cited 2,261 times   6 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. Beal Sav. Bank v. Sommer

    8 N.Y.3d 318 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 572 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a contract should not be interpreted so as to render any portion of it meaningless

  4. Fiscal Equity v. State

    86 N.Y.2d 307 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 475 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that Article XI requires state to provide "minimally adequate" facilities to all public schools

  5. R/S Associates v. New York Job Development Authority

    98 N.Y.2d 29 (N.Y. 2002)   Cited 330 times
    Holding that unless the court finds ambiguity, evidence outside the four corners of the contract is generally inadmissible

  6. Riverside South Planning Corp. v. CRP/Extell Riverside

    60 A.D.3d 61 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 199 times
    Noting that a contract is ambiguous "if the provisions in controversy are reasonably or fairly susceptible of different interpretations or may have two or more different meanings"

  7. Slatt v. Slatt

    64 N.Y.2d 966 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 267 times
    Cautioning that "courts may not fashion a new contract under the guise of contract construction," but must "discern the intent of the parties, to the extent that [the parties] evidenced what they intended by what they wrote" (alteration in Slatt )

  8. Green v. Santa Fe Industries, Inc.

    70 N.Y.2d 244 (N.Y. 1987)   Cited 232 times
    Recognizing privity based on representation may exist between an insured and its liability insurer based on the parties' indemnitor-indemnitee relationship, and between a bankruptcy trustee and a creditor whose interests the trustee represented in a prior action

  9. Rudman v. Cowles Communications

    30 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1972)   Cited 318 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is influential but not conclusive that parties have entered into separate written agreements with separate assents

  10. Amusement Business Underwriters v. Am. Int'l Group

    66 N.Y.2d 878 (N.Y. 1985)   Cited 202 times
    Stating that defaulting defendant who admits all traversable allegations in complaint does not admit plaintiff's conclusion of damages and may, at damages inquest, offer proof in mitigation of damages involving circumstances intrinsic to transactions at issue in complaint