Spector v. Sovereign Const. Co., Ltd.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1974 |
| Citation | 45 A.D.2d 673,356 N.Y.S.2d 79 |
| Parties | Joseph SPECTOR, d/b/a Continental Painting, Co., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. SOVEREIGN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LTD., et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
C. M. Leib, New York City, for plaintiff-respondent.
J. Morgulas, New York City, for defendants-appellants.
Before McGIVERN, P.J., and MARKEWICH, NUNEZ, MURPHY and STEUER, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County entered on November 21, 1973, denying appellants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, third, fifth and sixth causes of action set forth in the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, the motion granted, and said causes of action in the complaint dismissed and severed. Appellants shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. We fail to perceive any genuine issues of fact precluding grant of the motion. Parol evidence is admissible to resolve an ambiguity, not to create one. We find the Final Settlement Agreements are clear and unambiguous. Their interpretation constitutes a question of law for the court. Under the explicit and clear terms of each of the Final Settlement Agreements, particularly paragraphs '1' and '2' thereof covering the treatment of all obligations and specific claims, and paragraph '4' thereof constituting an explicit general release of all existing claims and demands whatsoever, the causes of action here asserted are barred and thus dismissed. Tramco Industries, Inc. v. Broad Hollow Associates, 30 A.D.2d 522, 290 N.Y.S.2d 260, aff'd 23 N.Y.2d 841, 297 N.Y.S.2d 739, 245 N.E.2d 408; Intercontinental Planning v. Daystrom, 24 N.Y.2d 372, 300 N.Y.S.2d 817, 248 N.E.2d 576.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Sapolin Paints, Inc.
...522, 290 N.Y.S.2d 260 (1st Dep't 1968), aff'd, 23 N.Y.2d 841, 297 N.Y.S.2d 739, 245 N.E.2d 408 (1969); Spector v. Sovereign Const. Co., 45 A.D.2d 673, 356 N.Y.S.2d 79 (1st Dep't 1974). Whatever negotiations were had between IFR and United, on the one hand, and Sapolin, on the other, prior t......
-
Krumme v. Westpoint Stevens Inc., POINT-PEPPEREL
...we review de novo the scope of an unambiguous release. See Tourangeau, 101 F.3d at 306; Spector v. Sovereign Constr. Co., 45 A.D.2d 673, 673, 356 N.Y.S.2d 79, 80 (1st Dep't 1974) (per curiam). An unambiguous release "should be enforced according to its terms." Booth v. 3669 Delaware, 92 N.Y......
-
Bellefonte Re Ins. Co. v. Argonaut Ins. Co.
...evidence. The purpose of introducing such evidence is to clear away confusion, not to generate it. Spector v. Sovereign Construction Co., 45 A.D.2d 673, 356 N.Y.S.2d 79 (1st Dep't. 1974). The Court is also unpersuaded that defendant procured the settlement by fraud. Plaintiffs allege no new......
-
In re L & V Realty Corp.
...522, 290 N.Y.S.2d 260 (1st Dep't 1968), aff'd, 23 N.Y.2d 841, 297 N.Y.S.2d 739, 245 N.E.2d 408 (1969); Spector v. Sovereign Const. Co., 45 A.D.2d 673, 356 N.Y.S.2d 79, 80 (1st Dep't 1974) ("Parol evidence is admissible to resolve an ambiguity, not to create one."). "Where . . . `the languag......