Majority
Order
The motion court properly barred assertion of an option that defendant co-venturer does not have under the concededly unambiguous terms of the subject agreement. Since said agreement is unambiguous, extrinsic evidence should not be considered (see, Rosalie Estates v Colonia Ins. Co., 227 AD2d 335 , 336). Defendants’ construction of the agreement would potentially deny force or effect to a key provision thereof (see, Gemma Constr. Co. v City of New York, 246 AD2d 451 , 454), or render such provision meaningless in the context of the agreement as a whole (see, AIG Trading Corp. v Valero Gas Mktg., 254 AD2d 117 , 118). We also find that, under the unique circumstances of this case, the second order was both procedurally and substantively proper. We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J. P., Andrias, Lerner, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.
Cases cited
- Rosalie Estates, Inc. v. Colonia Insurance 227 AD2d 335 at 336 p. 384
- Gemma Construction Co. v. City of New York 246 AD2d 451 at 454 p. 384