Yonkers Contracting Company, Inc. v. Romano Enterprises of New York, Inc.

Decision Date01 May 2007
Docket Number2005-10658.
Citation2007 NY Slip Op 03911,835 N.Y.S.2d 363,40 A.D.3d 629
PartiesYONKERS CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., Respondent, v. ROMANO ENTERPRISES OF NEW YORK, INC., Appellant, et al., Defendants, and SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY et al., Respondents. (And Another Title.)
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, the power of the Appellate Division is as broad as that of the trial court and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]).

The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant counterclaim plaintiff Romano Enterprises of New York, Inc. (hereinafter Romano), breached the parties' contract and that the plaintiff counterclaim defendant Yonkers Contracting Company, Inc. (hereinafter Yonkers), did not breach the subject contract. "It is well-settled that when interpreting a contract, the court should arrive at a construction which will give fair meaning to all of the language employed by the parties,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Lewin v. Levine
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 11, 2017
    ...that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses" (Yonkers Contr. Co., Inc. v. Romano Enters. of N.Y., Inc., 40 A.D.3d 629, 629, 835 N.Y.S.2d 363 ; see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2......
  • Speirs v. Bluefire Ethanol Fuels, Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 15, 2015
    ...as would leave one of its provisions substantially without force or effect’ [citations]." (Yonkers Contracting Co., Inc. v. Romano Enterprises of New York, Inc. (N.Y. 2007) 835 N.Y.S.2d 363, 364–365.) The anti-dilution provision at issue applied generally to issuances of "stock, options, wa......
  • Barbourville Diagnostic Imaging Ctr. v. Philips Med. Sys., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
    • January 20, 2015
    ...Sq. Venture v. Never Home Laundry, 252 A.D.2d at 521, 675 N.Y.S.2d 365; see also Yonkers Contracting Co. v. Romano Enterprises of New York, Inc., 40 A.D.3d 629, 629, 835 N.Y.S.2d 363, 364-65 (App. Div. 2007) ("[T]he court should arrive at a construction which will give fair meaning to all o......
  • 6243 Jericho Realty Corp. v. AutoZone, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 23, 2010
    ...Professional Park Assoc. v. Town of Bedford, 60 N.Y.2d 492, 499, 470 N.Y.S.2d 350, 458 N.E.2d 809; Yonkers Contr. Co., Inc. v. Romano Enters. of N.Y., Inc., 40 A.D.3d 629, 835 N.Y.S.2d 363). "In New York, all contracts imply a covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the course of perform......
  • 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