Dysal, Inc. v. Hub Properties Trust
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*827“ ‘The fundamental, neutral precept of contract interpretation is that agreements are construed in accord with the parties’ intent’ ” (Willsey v Gjuraj, 65 AD3d 1228, 1229-1230 [2009], quoting Franklin Apt. Assoc., Inc. v Westbrook Tenants Corp., 43 AD3d 860, 861 [2007] [some internal quotation marks omitted]; see Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, 569 [2002]). “ ‘When the terms of a written contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be found within the four corners of the contract, giving practical interpretation to the language employed and the parties’…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. GiancontieriNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 2002
- Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 538 Madison Realty Co.New York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Reiss v. Financial Performance Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Willsey v. GjurajAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- NRT New York, LLC v. HardingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Bethea v. ThousandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- Center for Science Teaching & Learning v. Freeport Community Development AgencyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Gronich & Co., Inc. v. Longstreet Assoc. L.P.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Center for Science Teaching & Learning v. Freeport Community Dev. AgencyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.