Opinion
May 27, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision ( see, Schicchi v. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509); and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
It is well settled that a court should not strain to find an ambiguity where the language of the policy is clear and precise ( see, Rotblut v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 226 A.D.2d 617). The question of whether a writing is ambiguous is one of law to be resolved by the courts, and the rules governing the construction of ambiguous contracts are not triggered unless the court first finds an ambiguity ( see, Matter of Wallace v. 600 Partners Co., 86 N.Y.2d 543, 548). Here, we find that the plaintiffs were entitled to the sums awarded under the plain meaning of the agreement between the parties and the rider attached thereto.
We have reviewed the defendants' remaining contentions find them to be without merit.
Miller, J.P., Ritter, Joy and Krausman, JJ., concur.