Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000

Reiner v. Wenig

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided February 7, 2000

269 A.D.2d 379; 702 N.Y.S.2d 862; 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1232

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Lerer v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
DePasquale v. Daniel Realty Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Rapp v. 136 Oak Drive Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Gorey v. Allion Healthcare, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Estate of Blatt v. North Fork Bank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Joseph v. Rubinstein Jewelry Mfg. Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Yerushalmi & Associates, LLP v. Westland Overseas Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Manchester Technologies, Inc. v. Didata (NY) Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
DeFalco v. Parker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
Parkash v. Utilisave Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated December 11, 1998, as denied their motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

‘While the meaning of a contract is ordinarily a question of law, when a term or clause is ambiguous and the determination of the parties’ intent depends upon the credibility of extrinsic evidence or a choice among inferences to be drawn from extrinsic evidence, then the issue is one of fact” (Amusement Bus. Underwriters v American Intl. Group, 66 NY2d 878, 880). The stock option contracts which are the subject of this action are ambiguous and subject to different interpretations. Therefore, the Supreme Court properly found that triable issues of fact exist which must be resolved by a trial (see, Besicorp Group v Enowitz, 235 AD2d 761; Yanuck v Paston & Sons Agency, 209 AD2d 207; Brook Shopping Ctrs. v Allied Stores Gen. Real Estate Co., 165 AD2d 854). Ritter, J. P., Altman, Schmidt and Smith, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.