Slamow v. Del Col

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 79 N.Y.2d 1016

Decision Date: 5/7/1992

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Slamow v. Del Col, 79 N.Y.2d 1016 (1992)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1992


Citation analytics

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

Frequently CitedTop 12% most-cited · cited by 25 decisions
25
Citing decisions
1
Authorities cited
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

11
8
6
2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

2d Cir.6
S.D.N.Y.6
D. Nev.2
N.D.N.Y.2
5th Cir.1
Bankr. D. Del.1
Most recently cited by10
  • 2026Reidy Contracting Group, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company 2d Cir.
  • 2025Guttman v. EBF Holdings, LLC Bankr. D. Md.
  • 2024Bridgeton 396 Broadway Fee, LLC v. HiRise Engg. P.C. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
  • 2021SC2006, LLC v. Arbor Agency Lending, LLC D. Nev.
  • 2020Argonaut Insurance Company v. City of Troy, New York N.D.N.Y.
  • 2019Automated Irrigation Controls, LLC v. The Wattstopper, Inc. S.D.N.Y.
  • 2018Holland Loader Co. v. Flsmidth A/S S.D.N.Y.
  • 2017Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran 2d Cir.
  • 2016International Technologies Marketing, Inc. v. Verint Systems, Ltd. S.D.N.Y.
  • 2014Cirino v. City of New York 2d Cir.
Cites 1 case
  • Slamow v. Del Col

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


Opinion

Michael Slamow et al., Respondents, v John Del Col, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Attorneys

  • APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
  • Matthew D. Arkin for appellant.
  • David W. Silverman for respondents.
majority

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated by the Appellate Division (174 AD2d 725).

We would but add the following, in response to the dissent. The best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in their writing. Here, the words used in the parties’ contract are clear and unambiguous, and entitle the purchasers to return of their down payment. That this may be a standard clause in a form for the sale of real property suggests even more strongly that the clause should be rewritten if it is indeed inaccurate, rather than for this Court to speculate as to what the parties to a particular transaction could have believed it meant.

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.