Signature Realty, Inc. v. Tallman, 814 N.E.2d 429 (N.Y. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Signature Realty, Inc. v. Tallman, 814 N.E.2d 429 (N.Y. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Novelty Crystal Corp. v. PSA Institutional Partners, L.P., 49 A.D.3d 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008)
How cited ↗
Cited for
2 N.Y.3d at 811 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Novelty Crystal Corp. v. PSA Institutional Partners, L.P., 49 A.D.3d 113 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).published
    When the terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous, the contract must be enforced on that basis (see Goldstein v AccuScan, Inc., 2 NY3d 811, 812 [2004]; Signature Realty, Inc. v Tallman, 2 NY3d 810, 811 [2004]; Greenfield v Philles R…
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Signature Realty, Inc., Appellant,
v.
Tim Tallman, Doing Business as Tallman’s Tire and Auto Service, Respondent
New York Court of Appeals.
Jun 3, 2004.
Published opinion
814 N.E.2d 429
2004 N.Y. LEXIS 1317
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Law Office of Richard L. Wolfe, Utica (Richard L. Wolfe of counsel), for appellant., Kowalczyk, Tolies & Deery, LLP, Utica {Robert K. Hilton, III, of counsel), for respondent.
Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith Concur in Memorandum.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

[*767] OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be reversed, with costs, and the case remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.

As we recently stated in R/S Assoc. v New York Job Dev. Auth. (98 NY2d 29, 32 [2002]), “when parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms” (see also Reiss v Financial Performance Corp., 97 NY2d 195, 198 [2001], quoting W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]). Nothing in the parties’ agreement limits the commission to the initial lease period. On the contrary, an option to renew a lease for three five-year periods, as provided for in the subject lease, would fall within the broad category of “a lease, rental arrangement or other occupancy,” unambiguously requiring payment of 10% of the rent over the period of occupancy.

Given that plaintiff did not cross-move for summary judgment, this Court is not empowered to grant it summary relief (see Merritt Hill Vineyards v Windy Hgts. Vineyard, 61 NY2d 106, 110-111 [1984]).

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges G.B. Smith, Ciparick, Rosenblatt, Graffeo, Read and R.S. Smith concur in memorandum.

Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, etc.