McRory v. Craft Architectural Metals Corp.

• Decision Date: 22 July 1985
• Citation: McRory v. Craft Architectural Metals Corp., 491 N.Y.S.2d 808, 112 A.D.2d 358 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
• Parties: Raymond J. McRORY, Respondent, v. CRAFT ARCHITECTURAL METALS CORPORATION, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 808

491 N.Y.S.2d 808

112 A.D.2d 358

Raymond J. McRORY, Respondent, v. CRAFT ARCHITECTURAL METALS CORPORATION, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

July 22, 1985.

Stuart, Zavin, Sinnreich & Wasserman, New York City (Harvey Stuart, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

McCoy & Agoglia, P.C., Mineola (Kathleen M. Beckett, Mineola, of counsel), for respondent.

Before MOLLEN, P.J., and RUBIN, LAWRENCE and KUNZEMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In an action to recover legal fees under a written contract, defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 9, 1983, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, (2) an order of the same court, dated February 1, 1984, which denied its motion for leave to renew plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and (3) a judgment of the same court, entered February 14, 1984, which, upon the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff, is in his favor and against it in the sum of $54,099.31.

Appeals from the orders dismissed (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248, 383 N.Y.S.2d 285, 347 N.E.2d 647). The issues raised on the appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

A review of the record shows that no triable issues of fact were raised pertaining to the terms of the letter agreement between the parties or whether plaintiff fully performed his obligations pursuant to the agreement. There can be no question that plaintiff obtained a favorable decision from the Internal Revenue Service regarding a previous disallowance of a carryover of a substantial net operating loss sustained by one of defendant's subsidiary companies in 1975, by challenging the disallowance through the appellate process. That was all he was required to do.

Moreover, defendant's argument that the letter agreement should not be construed against it is disingenuous. The agreement was written on stationery bearing defendant's letterhead, addressed to plaintiff, and was signed by defendant's president, an experienced businessman who had served in that position for 24 years. Clearly he should be charged with knowledge and understanding of the terms contained in a document he prepared and executed, notwithstanding that some of the language may have been suggested by plaintiff. Equally unpersuasive is defendant's claim that because new counsel had to be retained to complete certain work in connection with "utilizing" the tax loss, plaintiff failed to perform completely under the contract. Clearly, this work was supplemental to and was not required by the agreement.

Special Term properly denied defendant's motion for leave to renew, which was...