Construction in the first department

Bajraktari Mgt. Corp. v American Intl. Group, Inc., 2011 NY Slip Op 00621 (App. Div., 1st 2011)

The insurance policy clearly and unambiguously defines "Continuity Date" as December 29, 2004. The motion court correctly declined to consider parol evidence to ascertain the parties' intention as to that date (see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]). "[A] contract is not rendered ambiguous just because one of the parties attaches a different, subjective meaning to one of its terms" (Moore v Kopel, 237 AD2d 124, 125 [1997]).

Plaintiffs' remaining arguments based upon their contention that the policy is ambiguous are unavailing. Their argument that the policy should be construed in a manner that would be consistent with "the reasonable expectations of a New York City property owner" is also unavailing (see Slayko v Security Mut. Ins. Co., 98 NY2d 289, 296-297 [2002]).

The bold is mine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s