§Why CasetextPricing

Littleton Construction Ltd., Appellant,v.Huber Construction, Inc. et al., Respondents.

Brief

23 Cited authorities

  1. Rotuba Extruders v. Ceppos

    46 N.Y.2d 223 (N.Y. 1978)   Cited 3,662 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment should be denied where there is any doubt as to the existence of triable issues of fact

  2. Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox

    3 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1957)   Cited 5,986 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Finding that provision prohibited assignments when the provision stated, in part, that "neither party hereto shall assign this agreement . . . without the prior written consent of the other party," and "that [defendant] shall not be required to recognize any assignments; and that if [defendant] shall receive notice of the existence of any assignment, it shall have the right to withhold payments until the assignment is cancelled or withdrawn"

  3. Capelin Assoc. v. Globe Mfg. Corp.

    34 N.Y.2d 338 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 1,468 times
    Holding that "[o]n a motion for summary judgment the court is not to determine credibility, but whether there exists a factual issue, or if arguably there is a genuine issue of fact"

  4. Mallad v. County Fed. Sav. Loan

    32 N.Y.2d 285 (N.Y. 1973)   Cited 610 times
    In Mallad Constr. Corp. v. County Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n, 32 N.Y.2d 285, 344 N.Y.S.2d 925, 298 N.E.2d 96 (1973), the New York Court of Appeals explained the applicable principles where contractual ambiguities arise in the context of summary judgment motions.

  5. Hartford Acc. Ind. v. Wesolowski

    33 N.Y.2d 169 (N.Y. 1973)   Cited 488 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding there was one "occurrence" under the event test when the insured vehicle struck one oncoming vehicle, ricocheted off, and struck a second vehicle more than 100 feet away and noting that there was "no intervening agent" and "in common understanding and parlance there was ... a single, inseparable ‘three-car accident’ "

  6. Weiss v. Garfield

    21 A.D.2d 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)   Cited 323 times

    May 12, 1964. Appeal from the Supreme Court, Sullivan County, LAWRENCE H. COOKE, J. Gustave B. Garfield for appellants. Samuel H. Stuttman for respondent. HAMM, J. Special Term denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff on March 18, 1960, entered into a contract with the defendant Oliver Garfield for the sale of land consisting of three parcels. The third parcel was described in the contract as follows: "ALSO all that tract or parcel of land, situate in the Town of Cochecton

  7. 67 Wall v. Franklin Bank

    37 N.Y.2d 245 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 204 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating the rule that doubt or ambiguity in a contract's terms will be resolved against the draftsman

  8. Merrill Lynch Realty v. Skinner

    63 N.Y.2d 590 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 85 times

    Decided December 20, 1984 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, M. Hallsted Christ, J. James J. Vaughn and E. Richard Rimmels for appellants. John V. Henry for respondents. WACHTLER, J. Plaintiffs, George and Marjorie Roukis, commenced this action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a home and alternatively sought damages for the sellers' alleged breach of the contract. Defendants Stanley and Elizabeth Skinner moved for summary

  9. MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

    34 Misc. 3d 895 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)   Cited 21 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Describing the plaintiff's claim for damages "in the amount that it has been required to pay pursuant to the Insurance Policies, less premiums [the plaintiff] received" as a claim for "rescissory damages"

  10. Syncora Guarantee Inc. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

    36 Misc. 3d 328 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)   Cited 19 times
    Explaining that rescission is impractical when it would either harm the policies' beneficiaries and the noteholders and would lead to greater economic harm or when it is "under governing transaction documents"