Legal Opinion
Schron v. Troutman Sanders LLP
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 22, 2012Published
1Opinion of the Court
*89OPINION OF THE COURT
Catterson, J.
In this action, the defendants are seeking to avoid the plain language of an option to purchase a national nursing-home company by incorporating into it a separate loan agreement through the use of parol evidence. Two motion courts correctly rejected this tortured argument and we therefore affirm.
Plaintiff Rubin Schron is a real estate investor who operates through various entities using the names Cammeby’s and Cam-Elm (all managed by Schron and majority-owned by his immediate family). Defendant-appellant Leonard Grunstein , a partner at Troutman Sanders LLP…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Oppenheimer & Co. v. Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Rudman v. Cowles Communications, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1972
- Ehrlich v. American Moninger Greenhouse Manufacturing Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1970
- Hicks v. BushNew York Court of Appeals · 1962
- Ronnen v. Ajax Electric Motor Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1996
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.