Erickson Air-Crane Inc. v. EAC Holdings
Opinion of the Court
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered September 1, 2010, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to plaintiffs argument, the contested language of article 9 is susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation (see Riverside S. Planning Corp. v CRP/Extell Riverside, L.P., 60 AD3d 61, 67 [2008] [“clear contractual language does not become ambiguous simply because the parties . . . argue different interpretations”], affd 13 NY3d 398 [2009]). We also reject plaintiffs argument that defendant was required to show it was prejudiced by plaintiffs failure to provide notice of the asserted third-party claims; the cited provision of article 9 refers to prejudice arising from late notice, not the absence of any notice whatsoever. Concur — Andrias, J.E, Sweeny, Catterson, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.