Weisberger v. Goldstein
| Decision Date | 22 September 1997 |
| Citation | 662 N.Y.S.2d 544,242 A.D.2d 622 |
| Parties | , 1997 N.Y. Slip Op. 7719 David J. WEISBERGER, et al., Appellants, v. Norman Alan GOLDSTEIN, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Daniel D. Molinoff, Larchmont, for appellants.
Vida M. Alvy, New York City, for respondents.
Before RITTER, J.P., and SULLIVAN, SANTUCCI and McGINITY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), entered May 14, 1996, which, after a nonjury trial and upon granting the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law, dismissed the complaint.
ORDERED that judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, that branch of the defendants' motion which was for judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs' first cause of action is denied and the motion is otherwise granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for entry of a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on their first cause of action in the sum of $8,000.
The plaintiffs entered into a contract for the purchase of the defendants' residence. In a provision thereof entitled "Roof and Leaks" the defendants agreed to repair or replace "all broken, rotted and split shingles" on the roof prior to closing. Subsequent to the closing the roof leaked and allegedly caused extensive water damage to the interior of the house. The plaintiffs then commenced this action to recover damages for breach of contract and for fraud.
The evidence adduced at trial demonstrated that the defendants replaced only 100 shingles on the front portion of the roof so as to obtain an aesthetically pleasing result. No work was done on the remainder of the roof nor was any of the work carried out so as to prevent water from leaking into the interior of the house.
At trial, the court admitted parol evidence in an attempt to determine the breadth and scope of the repairs that were contemplated under the "Roof and Leaks" provision of the contract. At the conclusion of the trial the defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law arguing that they had complied with this provision by replacing shingles on the front portion of the roof. The trial court granted the motion holding, inter alia, that the provision in question was "plain and unambiguous" and that defendants had complied with its terms.
The trial court properly determined that the "Roof and Leaks" provision was unambiguous, thereby "rendering all the parol evidence submitted at trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
International Marine Investors and Management Corp. v. Wirth
...contract, giving a practical interpretation to the language employed and the parties' reasonable expectations' " (Weisberger v. Goldstein, --- A.D.2d ----, 662 N.Y.S.2d 544, quoting Slamow v. Delcol, 174 A.D.2d 725, 726, 571 N.Y.S.2d 335, affd. 79 N.Y.2d 1016, 584 N.Y.S.2d 424, 594 N.E.2d 9......
-
Niles v. Nature's Way Pest Control, SC-0822-18/GF
...v. Delcol , 174 AD2d 725, 726, 571 N.Y.S.2d 335, aff'd. , 79 NY2d 1016, 584 N.Y.S.2d 424, 594 N.E.2d 918. See also ; Weisberger v. Goldstein, 242 AD2d 622, 662 N.Y.S.2d 544 ; Mazzola v. County of Suffolk, 143 AD2d 734, 533 N.Y.S.2d 297 ; W.W.W. Assocs. v. Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 565 N.Y.......
-
Tikotzky v. City of NY
...of the contract, giving a practical interpretation to the language employed and the parties' reasonable expectations" (Weisberger v Goldstein, 242 A.D.2d 622, 623; see, Slamow v Del Col, 174 A.D.2d 725, affd 79 N.Y.2d 1016; see also, W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162-163; Ma......
-
Macrae v. Dolce
...(Slamow v. Delcol, 174 A.D.2d 725, 726, 571 N.Y.S.2d 335, affd. 79 N.Y.2d 1016, 584 N.Y.S.2d 424, 594 N.E.2d 918; Weisberger v. Goldstein, 242 A.D.2d 622, 662 N.Y.S.2d 544; W.W.W. Assocs. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 162-163, 565 N.Y.S.2d 440, 566 N.E.2d 639; Mazzola v. County of Suffolk......