Search for: "Greenfield v. Philles Records"
Results 1 - 6
of 6
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2018, 4:00 am
Citing Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, the Appellate Division disagreed, explaining that "It is well settled that "a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms," and whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 5:46 am
(UAW) v Yard-Man, Inc. (716 F2d 1476 [6th Cir 1983], cert denied 465 US 1007 [1984]) and its progeny. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 5:46 am
(UAW) v Yard-Man, Inc. (716 F2d 1476 [6th Cir 1983], cert denied 465 US 1007 [1984]) and its progeny. [read post]
3 Jan 2020, 1:27 pm
Philles Records, Inc., 98 N.Y.2d 562, 569 (2002) (citing R/S Assocs. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 3:00 am
Last week, a Manhattan appellate panel in Antonini v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
Because plaintiff failed to protect himself in the operating agreements, his bonuses were subject to Harnisch's whimsy, and the court erred in supplying its own calculation of a sharing ratio for plaintiff (see Greenfield v Philles Records, 98 NY2d 562, 569-570 [2002]) instead of dismissing his breach of contract claim. [read post]
