Legal Opinion
Hudson-Port Ewen Associates, L.P. v. Kuo
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 9, 1991PublishedCited by 73 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Where consideration of a contract as a whole resolves the ambiguity created by one clause, there is no occasion to consider extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent (W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162-163). We agree with the Appellate Division majority that the contract in this case, read as a whole, establishes that it was defendants’ duty to convey both an insurable title and title which was free of all encumbrances save those specified in the contract. As there is no dispute that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. GiancontieriNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
3Cited by73 opinions
- LAW DEBENTURE TRUST CO. OF NY. v. Maverick Tube Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2010
- Consarc Corporation v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Readco, Inc., R.D.P. Associates, Lan Associates Xii and Antonio Reale v. Marine Midland Bank Eagle Rock Holding, Inc., a New York Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Sayers v. Rochester Telephone Corp. Supplemental Management Pension PlanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993
- Nycal Corp. v. INOCO PLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.