Legal Opinion

Time Warner Entertainment Co. v. Brustowsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 28, 1995PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J., and a jury), entered May 19, 1994, which dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court, in charging the jury, properly required the jury to interpret and determine the fair and reasonable meaning of the term "hazardous substances” as used in the lease between the parties. This Court specifically determined, on a prior appeal, that the lease provision at issue was ambiguous and that the parties’ intent with respect thereto must be resolved at trial (Manhattan Cable Tel. v Brustowsky, 191 AD2d 253, 254).…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Mallad Construction Corp. v. County Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
  2. Dolman v. United States Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1956
  3. Manhattan Cable Television, Inc. v. BrustowskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. HSBC Bank USA v. Bank of New EnglandCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2004
  2. Finkelstein v. TainiterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  3. Kohman v. Rochambeau Realty & Development Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
  4. Lahey v. LaheyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
  5. Bero Family Partnership v. ElardoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API