Cianchetti v. Burgio

Decision Date23 December 2016
Citation145 A.D.3d 1539,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08690,44 N.Y.S.3d 293
Parties Jeffrey CIANCHETTI, DC, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Phyllis BURGIO, DC, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Roscetti & Decastro, P.C., Niagara Falls (James C. Roscetti of Counsel), for DefendantAppellant.

Tisdale & Coykendall, Niagara Falls (Thomas J. Caserta, Jr., of Counsel), for PlaintiffRespondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., DeJOSEPH, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for, inter alia, breach of contract arising out of defendant's sale of a chiropractic practice to plaintiff. After discovery, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability for breach of contract, and defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Each party contended in support of his or her requested relief that the terms of the contract were clear and unequivocal. Supreme Court, inter alia, denied defendant's cross motion based on its conclusion that the contract was ambiguous and, on a prior appeal, this Court affirmed that determination (Cianchetti v. Burgio, 89 A.D.3d 1410, 1411, 933 N.Y.S.2d 630 ). The matter proceeded to a nonjury trial, and defendant now appeals from an order in which the court, among other things, concluded that defendant breached the parties' contract and awarded plaintiff damages for that breach. We affirm.

Initially, we reject defendant's contention that the contract was not ambiguous. We previously affirmed the court's determination that the contract was ambiguous, and "[o]ur prior decision in [a] case is the law of the case until modified or reversed by a higher court" (Senf v. Staubitz, 11 A.D.3d 997, 997, 782 N.Y.S.2d 488 ; see J.N.K. Mach. Corp. v. TBW, Ltd., 98 A.D.3d 1259, 1260, 951 N.Y.S.2d 290 ). We also reject defendant's contention that the court erred, when interpreting the contract, in using extrinsic evidence to ascertain the intent of the parties. It is well settled that, although "matters extrinsic to the agreement may not be considered when the intent of the parties can be gleaned from the face of the instrument" (Chimart Assoc. v. Paul, 66 N.Y.2d 570, 572–573, 498 N.Y.S.2d 344, 489 N.E.2d 231 ), where the contract "on its face is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation," it is ambiguous (General Motors, LLC v. B.J. Muirhead Co., Inc., 120 A.D.3d 927, 928, 991 N.Y.S.2d 205 [internal quotation marks omitted] ), and "the intent of the contracting parties may properly be determined based on the extrinsic evidence submitted by the parties" (T.L.C. W., LLC v. Fashion Outlets of Niagara, LLC, 60 A.D.3d 1422, 1423, 875 N.Y.S.2d 367 ).

With respect to defendant's contention that the court erred in determining that she breached the contract, we note that, inasmuch as this is a determination after a nonjury trial, "[o]ur scope of review is as broad as that of the trial court" (Matter of Capizola v. Vantage Intl., 2 A.D.3d 843, 844, 770 N.Y.S.2d 395 ). It is well settled, however, that the decision of a court following a nonjury trial should not be disturbed on appeal "unless it is obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence, especially [where, as here,] the findings of fact rest in large measure on considerations relating to the credibility of witnesses" (Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl., 80 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 591 N.Y.S.2d 978, 606 N.E.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Hetelekides v. Cnty. of Ont.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 30, 2021
    ...978, 606 N.E.2d 1369 [1992], rearg denied 81 N.Y.2d 835, 595 N.Y.S.2d 397, 611 N.E.2d 298 [1993] ; Cianchetti v. Burgio , 145 A.D.3d 1539, 1540-1541, 44 N.Y.S.3d 293 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 908, 2017 WL 2367333 [2017] ). We thus conclude that plaintiff was not entitled to any ......
  • Workman v. Dumouchel
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • August 22, 2019
    ...obvious that the court's conclusions could not be reached under any fair interpretation of the evidence" ( Cianchetti v. Burgio, 145 A.D.3d 1539, 1540, 44 N.Y.S.3d 293 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 908, 2017 WL 2367333 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted], quoting Thoreson v. P......
  • Howard v. Pooler
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 12, 2020
    ...978, 606 N.E.2d 1369 [1992], rearg denied 81 N.Y.2d 835, 595 N.Y.S.2d 397, 611 N.E.2d 298 [1993] ; see Cianchetti v. Burgio , 145 A.D.3d 1539, 1540-1541, 44 N.Y.S.3d 293 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 908, 2017 WL 2367333 [2017] ). Contrary to the contentions of defendant and the int......
  • Burke v. Gynecology
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 11, 2021
    ...458 N.E.2d 809 [1983] ; Howard v. Pooler , 184 A.D.3d 1160, 1163, 126 N.Y.S.3d 824 [4th Dept. 2020] ; Cianchetti v. Burgio , 145 A.D.3d 1539, 1540, 44 N.Y.S.3d 293 [4th Dept. 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 908, 2017 WL 2367333 [2017] ). It is well settled, however, that the decision of a court ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT