Legal Opinion
Kolmar Americas, Inc. v. Bioversel Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided November 10, 2011PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*494Plaintiffs attempt to insert ambiguity into the applicable tax clause contained in the general terms and conditions (GTC) of the agreement between the parties which required plaintiff to pay defendant all taxes “paid or incurred by [defendant] directly or indirectly with respect to the product sold,” is unpersuasive. “A written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms” (Excel Graphics Tech, v CFG/AGSCB 75 Ninth Ave., 1 AD3d 65, 69 [2003], lv dismissed 2 NY3d 794 [2004]). Contrary to plaintiffs argument, the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Spiegelberg v. GomezNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Excel Graphics Technologies, Inc. v. CFG/AGSCB 75 Ninth AvenueAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Diamond Castle Partners IV PRC, L.P. v. IAC/InterActiveCorpAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- Intershoe, Inc. v. Bankers Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1991
3Cited by11 opinions
- Murray v. FarrellAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- Lynch v. HUB Intl. Group Northeast Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024
- Lynch v. HUB Intl. Group Northeast Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2024
- Empire Insurance v. San MiguelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Empire Insurance v. San MiguelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.