From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Korsinsky v. Tax Commissioner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 2, 2002
300 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-09148

Submitted October 15, 2002.

December 2, 2002.

In a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7 to review a real property tax assessment for the tax year 1996-1997, the petitioner appeals from a judgment dated August 23, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Gersh Korsinsky, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellant pro se.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Rita D. Dumain, Carl A. Laske, and Mary I. Swartz of counsel), for respondent.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., ANITA R. FLORIO, SONDRA MILLER, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is a primary rule of contract construction that "when parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms" (W.W.W. Assocs. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162). Moreover, "[i]nterpretation of an unambiguous contract provision is a function for the court, and matters extrinsic to the agreement may not be considered when the intent of the parties can be gleaned from the face of the instrument" (Teitelbaum Holdings v. Gold, 48 N.Y.2d 51, 56; Chimart Assoc. v. Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570, 572; see Gora v. D.I.D. Acquisition Co., 226 A.D.2d 425, 426; Magnolia Development Corp. v. Lockwood, 160 A.D.2d 774, 776-777).

Here, the parties' settlement agreement dated July 7, 1997, is a clear and complete document, and should be enforced according to its terms. The intent of the parties is clearly discernible from the four corners of that agreement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly upheld the validity of the settlement agreement.

The petitioner's remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., FLORIO, S. MILLER and H. MILLER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Korsinsky v. Tax Commissioner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 2, 2002
300 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Korsinsky v. Tax Commissioner

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF GERSH KORSINSKY, appellant, v. TAX COMMISSIONER, CITY OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 2, 2002

Citations

300 A.D.2d 306 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
751 N.Y.S.2d 853

Citing Cases

Step-Murphy v. B&B Brothers Real Estate Corp.

The Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the plaintiffs' motion which was for summary judgment on…

Cuomo v. Mahopac National Bank

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is…