Summary
affirming denial of motion to dismiss where contractual language deemed ambiguous
Summary of this case from 119 Spring LLC v. 119 Spring St. Co.Opinion
7988.
March 2, 2006.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered January 6, 2005, which denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft LLP, New York (Jason M. Halper of counsel), for appellants.
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., New York (Robert I. Bodian of counsel), for respondents.
Before: Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Saxe, Friedman and Williams, JJ., concur.
The contract provisions at issue are susceptible of reasonable interpretations supportive of differing outcomes to the parties' dispute. This being the case, extrinsic evidence is permitted to resolve the ambiguity and determine the intent of the parties at the time of the contract ( see Evans v. Famous Music Corp., 1 NY3d 452).