ML Media Partners, L.P. v. Century Communications Corp.
Opinion of the Court
Order
The motion court properly barred assertion of an option that defendant co-venturer does not have under the concededly unambiguous terms of the subject agreement. Since said agreement is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence should not be considered (see, Rosalie Estates v Colonia Ins. Co., 227 AD2d 335, 336). Defendants’ construction of the agreement would potentially deny force or effect to a key provision thereof (see, Gemma Constr. Co. v City of New York, 246 AD2d 451, 454), or render such provision meaningless in the context of the agreement as a whole (see, AIG Trading Corp. v Valero Gas Mktg., 254 AD2d 117, 118). We also find that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the second order was both procedurally and substantively proper. We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.