Goldstein v. AccuScan, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Pentech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (District Court, N.D. Illinois 2009)
- S.B. v. J.R. (New York Supreme Court 2013)
- U.S. Home Corp. v. Elm Farm Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. Baldwin Union Free School District (New York Supreme Court 2010)
- Novelty Crystal Corp. v. PSA Institutional Partners, L.P. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
“[W]hen parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms” (Signature Realty, Inc. v Tallman (2 NY3d 810 [decided today], quoting R/S Assoc, v New York Job Dev. Auth., 98 NY2d 29, 32 [2002]). The parties’ agreement states that AccuScan, Inc. shall pay its consultant, Amnon Goldstein, “10% of all amounts received” by AccuScan in excess of $4 million in settlements obtained or license fees awarded regarding certain patents. AccuScan argues that “all amounts received,” in fact, means all amounts received net of attorneys’ fees. As the Appellate Division correctly observed, however, the contract’s clear language does not admit of this qualification (307 AD2d 913, 914 [2d Dept 2003]). Finally, the existence of an attorney’s charging lien does not alter AccuScan’s contractual obligation to Goldstein.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.