green
Positive treatment
22.5 score
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Trump
(3×)
Lending, Inc. , 118 AD3d 555, 556 [1st Dept 2014]; see also Zafarani v Gluck , 40 AD3d 1082, 1083 [2d Dept 2007]). [FN35] The fundamental problem with all of defendants' expert opinions is their generality, and their failure to grapple with the facts that pertain to this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investors Trust, Series 2006-RM4
v.
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc.
v.
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 17, 2014.
Andrias, Kapnick, Renwick, Richter, Sweeny.
Published
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Melvin L. Schweitzer, J.), entered September 28, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims as against Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc., unanimously affirmed, without costs.
[*556] We affirm, for reasons different from those given by the motion court. The contract provision at issue is ambiguous, and therefore its meaning cannot be determined without reference to extrinsic evidence (see Chimart Assoc. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 572-573 [1986]).
Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.