Aivaliotis v. Continental Broker-Dealer Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | 2005-07676. |
| Parties | DIMITRIOS AIVALIOTIS et al., Appellants, v. CONTINENTAL BROKER-DEALER CORP., Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to enter judgment against the plaintiffs based upon a so-ordered stipulation dated December 14, 2004, is denied.
A so-ordered stipulation is a contract between the parties thereto and as such, is binding on them and "will be construed in accordance with contract principles and the parties' intent" (Serna v Pergament Distribs., 182 AD2d 985, 986 [1992]; see Nishman v De Marco, 76 AD2d 360, 366 [1980]). As in the interpretation of any contract, "the document must be read as a whole to determine the parties' purpose and intent, giving a practical interpretation to the language employed so that the parties' reasonable expectations are realized" (Snug Harbor Sq. Venture v Never Home Laundry, 252 AD2d 520, 521 [1998]; see Petracca v Petracca, 302 AD2d 576, 576-577 [2003]). The "[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 NY2d 51, 56 [1979]; see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 163 [1990]). Accordingly, a court "should not, under the guise of contract interpretation, `imply a term which the parties themselves failed to insert' or otherwise rewrite the contract" (Lui v Park Ridge at Terryville Assn., 196 AD2d 579, 581 [1993], quoting Mitchell v Mitchell, 82 AD2d 849 [1981]).
The instant action was settled by a so-ordered stipulation dated December 14, 2004 (hereinafter the stipulation), pursuant to which the plaintiffs agreed to pay to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loughlin v. Meghji
...166 ; W.W.W. Assoc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162, 565 N.Y.S.2d 440, 566 N.E.2d 639 ; see also Aivaliotis v. Continental Broker–Dealer Corp., 30 A.D.3d 446, 447, 817 N.Y.S.2d 365 ).The parties set the bar for realizing an award of double attorneys' fees higher than merely prevailing i......
-
Schwartz v. Schwartz
...principles and the parties' intent' " ( Tutt v. Tutt, 61 A.D.3d 967, 968, 878 N.Y.S.2d 760, quoting Aivaliotis v. Continental Broker-Dealer Corp., 30 A.D.3d 446, 447, 817 N.Y.S.2d 365; see Orra Realty Corp. v. Gillen, 76 A.D.3d 1056, 1058, 908 N.Y.S.2d 412). With regard to that branch of th......
-
G3–Purves St., LLC v. Thomson Purves, LLC
...the terms of an agreement are unambiguous, interpretation is a question of law for the court ( see Aivaliotis v. Continental Broker–Dealer Corp., 30 A.D.3d 446, 447, 817 N.Y.S.2d 365). “ ‘[W]hen interpreting a contract, the court should arrive at a construction which will give fair meaning ......
-
Rivera v. Wyckoff Heights Med. Ctr.
...de C.V., 17 N.Y.3d at 277, 929 N.Y.S.2d 3, 952 N.E.2d 995 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Aivaliotis v. Continental Broker–Dealer Corp., 30 A.D.3d 446, 447, 817 N.Y.S.2d 365) or “ ‘impos[e the court's] own conception of what the parties should or might have undertaken, rather than c......