Legal Opinion · Dissent
MAVEN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. VASILE, GAYLE A.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 3, 2017No. CA 16-00160Published
1Dissent
Whalen, P.J., and Troutman, J.
(dissenting). We respectfully dissent. Although we agree with the majority that the amended and restated operating agreement (agreement) is ambiguous, we do not agree that the interpretation of the agreement *1379depends on the credibility of extrinsic evidence or on a choice among reasonable inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence. Here, the interpretation of the agreement is the exclusive function of a court, and we conclude that plaintiffs have established that their construction is “ ‘the only construction [that] can fairly be placed thereon’ ” (DiPizio…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. WesolowskiNew York Court of Appeals · 1973
- Mitchell v. New York HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Cullen v. NaplesNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
- Hamburg v. American Ref-Fuel Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- Austin Harvard LLC v. City of CanandaiguaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.