Opinion
Argued September 25, 2001.
October 15, 2001.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Mahon, J.), dated June 20, 2000, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and, in effect, denied its cross motion for summary judgment or to dismiss the defendants' affirmative defenses.
Michael B. Schulman Associates, P.C., Plainview, N Y (Sherri L. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant.
Ledy-Gurren Blumenstock, LLP, New York, N Y (Nancy Ledy-Gurren and Elissa L. Shechter of counsel), for respondents.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ANITA R. FLORIO, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff's interpretation of the price schedules attached to the subject contracts does not give a "fair and reasonable meaning" (Heller v. Pope, 250 N.Y. 132, 135; see, Albanese v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 245 A.D.2d 475, 476) to the disputed words. To adopt the plaintiff's view that the parties agreed to a double-rate pay structure would necessarily require the Supreme Court to add terms to the contracts, i.e., a price formula, which the parties did not include. The "court's role is limited to interpretation and enforcement of the terms agreed to by the parties; it does not include the rewriting of their contract and the imposition of additional terms" (Matter of Salvano v. Merrill Lynch Pierce, Fenner Smith, 85 N.Y.2d 173, 182; see, Matter of MacCrae v. Dolce, 249 A.D.2d 476, 477; Matter of Scalabrini v. Scalabrini, 242 A.D.2d 725, 726). Moreover, where as here, the plaintiff's construction would in certain instances lead to unreasonable results, such a construction should be avoided (see, Nassau Ch., Civ. Serv. Employees Assn. v. County of Nassau, 77 A.D.2d 563, 564, affd 54 N.Y.2d 925; Hsieh v. Pudge Corp., 122 A.D.2d 198). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
RITTER, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, FLORIO and TOWNES, JJ., concur.