Hudson-Port Ewen Associates, L.P. v. Kuo

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 78 N.Y.2d 944, 573 N.Y.S.2d 637, 578 N.E.2d 435, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 1018

Decision Date: 7/9/1991

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Hudson-Port Ewen Associates, L.P. v. Kuo, 78 N.Y.2d 944, 573 N.Y.S.2d 637, 578 N.E.2d 435, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 1018 (1991)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1991

Hudson-Port Ewen Associates, L.P., Respondent, v Chien Kuo et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Stephen M. Rathkopf and Arthur G. Jakoby for appellants.
Robert S. Carlson for respondent.

majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Where consideration of a contract as a whole resolves the ambiguity created by one clause, there is no occasion to consider extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent (W.W.W. Assocs. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162-163). We agree with the Appellate Division majority that the contract in this case, read as a whole, establishes that it was defendants’ duty to convey both an insurable title and title which was free of all encumbrances save those specified in the contract. As there is no dispute that the title was subject to two unspecified encumbrances, plaintiff was not required to perform under the contract, and summary judgment was properly granted for plaintiff on its cause of action seeking return of its down payment and the cost of the title search.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.