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

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 4% most-cited · cited by 70 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.45

S.D.N.Y.11

N.Y. Sup. Ct.6

2d Cir.4

Bankr. E.D.N.Y.1

D. Kan.1

Most recently cited by10

2025Fasano S.D.N.Y.
2024Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. PMI Newco, LLC N.Y. App. Div.
2024Spotlight Ticket Management Inc. v. Daigle S.D.N.Y.
2022Mak Tech. Holdings Inc. v. Anyvision Interactive Tech. Ltd. N.Y. App. Div.
2020Saavedra v. 111 John Realty Corp. N.Y. App. Div.
2020Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company v. Continental Casualty Company S.D.N.Y.
2018Board of Educ. of the Northport-E. Northport Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Long Is. Power Auth. N.Y. Sup. Ct.
2018Town of Huntington v. Long Is. Power Auth. N.Y. Sup. Ct.
2016Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Fairbanks Co. S.D.N.Y.
2014Two Farms, Inc. v. Greenwich Insurance S.D.N.Y.

Cites 1 case

W.W.W. Associates, Inc. v. Giancontieri

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

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.