Suffolk County Water Authority v. Village of Greenport
Decision Date | 12 September 2005 |
Docket Number | 2004-04592. |
Citation | 800 N.Y.S.2d 767,2005 NY Slip Op 06667,21 A.D.3d 947 |
Parties | SUFFOLK COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The parties do not contend that their written contract was incomplete and that there was no meeting of the minds. Rather, they disagree as to what constitutes the plain meaning of their written contract. Whether an agreement is ambiguous is a question of law for the courts to be determined in examining the four corners of the writing, not outside sources (see Kass v. Kass, 91 NY2d 554, 566 [1998]). The determination of the Supreme Court in the plaintiff's favor is consistent with the plain meaning of the written agreement and basic principles of contract construction that an interpretation which renders language in the contract superfluous is unsupportable (see Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection of State of N.Y. v. Bank Leumi Trust Co. of N.Y., 94 NY2d 398, 404 [2000]).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Luna v. Am. Airlines
...superfluous is “unsupportable under standard principles of contract interpretation”); Suffolk Cnty. Water Auth. v. Vill. of Greenport, 21 A.D.3d 947, 948, 800 N.Y.S.2d 767, 768 (2d Dep't 2005) (“an interpretation which renders language in the contract superfluous is unsupportable.”) (citing......
-
Renaissance Econ. Dev. Corp. v. East Vill. Pet Grooming Salon Inc
...57 A.D.3d 212, 213 (1st Dep't 2008); RM 14 FK Corp. v. Bank One Trust Co., N.A., 37 A.D.3d at 274; Suffolk County Water Auth. v. Village of Greenoort, 21 A.D.3d 947, 948 (2d Dep't 2005); and "meaningless"--equally contrary to those principles. Beal Sav. Bank v. Sommer, 8 N.Y.3d at 324; Weis......
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harco Nat'l Ins. Co.
...construction that renders language in the contract superfluous is unsupportable. See Suffolk Cnty. Water Authority v. Village of Greenport, 21 A.D.3d 947, 948, 800 N.Y.S.2d 767 (N.Y.App.Div.2d Dept.2005) (“The determination of the Supreme Court in the Plaintiff's favor is consistent with th......
-
FCX Solar, LLC v. FTC Solar, Inc.
... ... of the courts sitting in Kendall County, ... Texas” was mandatory); Matheson ... See, e.g. , Suffolk Cty. Water Auth. v Vill. of ... Greenport , ... ...