Fiore v. Fiore
Cases that cite this one
28 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,956 David Broad v. Rockwell International Corporation (5th Cir. 1981)
- Eli Lilly and Co. v. Emisphere Technologies, Inc. (District Court, S.D. Indiana 2006)
- Donald L. Terwilliger, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Donald L. Terwilliger, III and John Terwilliger, Defendants-Appellants-Cross (2d Cir. 2000)
- US Trust Co. of New York v. Alpert (District Court, S.D. New York 1998)
- Cruden v. Bank of New York (2d Cir. 1992)
- Kardolrac Industries, Corp. v. Wang Laboratories, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 1985)
- Renberg v. Zarrow (Okla. 1983)
- Detweiler v. Robert Bump Construction LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2024)
- Wawa, Inc. v. MasterCard International, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2023)
- Ligado Networks LLC v. n (3d Cir. 2026)
- Retina Associates of Western New York, P.C. v. McKesson Corporation (District Court, W.D. New York 2023)
- Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Inc. Co. (2d Cir. 2020)
- Dubin v. Drescher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal v. Honeywell, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Brady v. Williams Capital Group, L.P. (New York Supreme Court 2007)
- Parker v. Booker (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Russ & Russ, P.C. v. Schadoff (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Ostad v. Ostad (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
- John Doris, Inc. v. Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Papa Gino's of America, Inc. v. Plaza at Latham Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Dorodea & S. Building Co. v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Mom's Bagels of New York, Inc. v. Sig Greenebaum Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Cohen v. Spodek (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Caruso v. Ward (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff notes that the stated purpose of the 1953 agreement is "to keep the ownership of the stock of the Corporation in themselves [i.e., the individual parties] and their surviving spouses and sons so far as is possible and circumstances will permit” and that in certain instances this purpose would be frustrated if the sons are not bound by its terms. The question, however, is not whether the agreement is imperfect but whether it is ambiguous. The courts may not rewrite a term of a contract by "interpretation” when it is clear and unambiguous on its face.
The phrase "individual parties” is not ambiguous as the plaintiff contends. The preamble identifies four parties to the agreement — the three Fiore brothers and "Fiore Brothers, Inc. * * * hereinafter termed the 'Corporation’ ”. Thereafter the agreement distinguished between the "Corporation” and the "individual parties”. Logically the phrase "individual parties” could only refer to the three Fiore brothers who together with the "Corporation” were the four parties to the agreement.
. Indeed the agreement leaves no room for doubt because it specifically identifies the "individual parties” as "the sole owners of all of the shares of the capital stock of Fiore Brothers, Inc., aforesaid, amounting in all to one hundred and fifty (150) shares” and then itemizes the shares held by the three brothers individually which together total 150 shares. There is then no merit to the plaintiff’s contention that the phrase "individual parties” is ambiguous and could apply not only to the signatories of the agreement, but also to their sons.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.