Interpretive Divergence in the New York Court of Appeals

This Article focuses attention on the New York Court of Appeals, which is decidedly formalist about contract interpretation but decidedly contextualist about statutory interpretation. It explores some recent exemplary cases to show where the New York Court of Appeals tends to land in what turns out to be, for this court at least, two different battlefields in the law of interpretation. Finding that there is “interpretive divergence” between statutory and contract cases, the Article then reflects on the practice of divergence more generally, revisiting assumptions about why anyone might have thought harmonization was sensible in the first place.