30 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"
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
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
Gordon v. Eastern Ry. Supply
82 N.Y.2d 555 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 895 times
Holding that defendants were liable under Labor Law § 240 for plaintiffs fall and injury occasioned by an allegedly defective sandblaster where such injuries were the foreseeable result of the failure to provide plaintiff with a safe scaffold or ladder while sandblasted a railway car from a ladder
Zimmer v. Performing Arts
65 N.Y.2d 513 (N.Y. 1985) Cited 1,053 times
Holding that owners/contractors are liable under Labor Law section 240 where they failed to provide any safety devices for workers at a building site, and the absence of such devices is the proximate cause of injury to a worker"
Klein v. City of New York
89 N.Y.2d 833 (N.Y. 1996) Cited 613 times
In Klein, the plaintiff sustained injuries when he fell from a ladder that slipped out from underneath him because the floor had recently been flooded with a slick and greasy water, and a “film” or “ ‘gunk’ ” residue remained (id. at 834, 652 N.Y.S.2d 723, 675 N.E.2d 458).
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
Felker v. Corning Inc.
90 N.Y.2d 219 (N.Y. 1997) Cited 374 times
Argued May 8, 1997; Decided June 12, 1997 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Steuben County (Henry J. Scudder, J.) Burke, Albright, Harter Rzepka, L. L. P., Rochester ( Johnson S. Albright II and Matthew D. Nafus of counsel), for third-party defendant-appellant. Martin Iati, Rochester ( Valerie L. Barbic of counsel), for Corning Incorporated and another, respondents. Krenzer Galliher, P.C., Honeoye Falls ( Cyril A. Krenzer of counsel), for Raymond L. Felker, Jr., and another, respondents. SMITH, J. Plaintiff
Brooks v. Judlau Contr
11 N.Y.3d 204 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 240 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that inclusion of the phrase “to the fullest extent permitted by law” limits a promisor's obligation and contemplates partial indemnification
Esposito v. N.Y.C. Indus. Dev. Agency
1 N.Y.3d 526 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 235 times
Holding that a worker was not covered by section 240 where he was injured while replacing air conditioning components that were damaged as a result of normal wear

Justin Nazario, Respondent,v.222 Broadway, LLC, et al., Respondents.---------------------------------222 Broadway, LLC, et al., Third-Party Respondents, v. Knight Electrical Services Corp., Third-Party Appellant. (And Other Third-Party Actions.)

30 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 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

Finding no intent to add terms where sophisticated parties could have added a term, but failed to do so

Holding that defendants were liable under Labor Law § 240 for plaintiffs fall and injury occasioned by an allegedly defective sandblaster where such injuries were the foreseeable result of the failure to provide plaintiff with a safe scaffold or ladder while sandblasted a railway car from a ladder

Holding that owners/contractors are liable under Labor Law section 240 where they failed to provide any safety devices for workers at a building site, and the absence of such devices is the proximate cause of injury to a worker"

In Klein, the plaintiff sustained injuries when he fell from a ladder that slipped out from underneath him because the floor had recently been flooded with a slick and greasy water, and a “film” or “ ‘gunk’ ” residue remained (id. at 834, 652 N.Y.S.2d 723, 675 N.E.2d 458).

Affirming a grant of New York state court motion to dismiss based on the application of the parol evidence rule

Holding that inclusion of the phrase “to the fullest extent permitted by law” limits a promisor's obligation and contemplates partial indemnification

Holding that a worker was not covered by section 240 where he was injured while replacing air conditioning components that were damaged as a result of normal wear