Opinion
May 29, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. Greenfield, J.).
We add only that assuming, arguendo, the parties' 1978 participation agreement was ambiguous with respect to the payment of interest as opposed to reduction of principal, such ambiguity by itself was inadequate to defeat summary judgment. Rather, plaintiff was required to come forward with particular extrinsic evidence supporting its interpretation. (Mallad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. Loan Assn., 32 N.Y.2d 285, 290; Sutton v. East Riv. Sav. Bank, 55 N.Y.2d 550, 554.) This plaintiff failed to do. Nor are plaintiff's self-generated protests about defendant Plantsville's acts and calculations, made only after the relevant agreements were executed, and abandoned three years before plaintiff commenced this action, sufficient to create any factual issues regarding its interpretation of the agreements.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ross, Kassal, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.