Opinion
December 10, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.).
The motion court properly found the subject agency agreement ambiguous, as it "may be parsed in two different, equally logical ways" ( Delaware Otsego Corp. v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 192 A.D.2d 911, 912, lv dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 705). It therefore properly considered the parties' practical construction as objectively manifested by their uniform dealings ( see, Kantor v. Bernstein, 245 A.D.2d 138) and correctly concluded therefrom that the parties' contract, obligating defendant to pay plaintiff licensing agency commissions on business done by defendant with a certain licensee, applied as well where the business upon which the subject commissions were calculated was done by defendant with the licensee's successor corporation. Given the clarity with which defendant by its prelitigation conduct acknowledged the obligation now at issue, defendant's subsequent protestations of inadvertence and error were not sufficient to raise factual issues necessitating a trial.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.