You are here: / / General Language—“Disposition”—Limited in Scope...
,

General Language—“Disposition”—Limited in Scope by More Specific Words—“Sale or Transfer”

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that the rules of contract interpretation did not allow the collection of a “transaction fee” by plaintiff financial advisor with respect to the defendant’s purchase of notes in anticipation of the purchase of a mine.  When the financing for the mine fell through, the defendant sold back the notes in accordance with the purchase agreement with the seller of the notes.  The plaintiff sought a “transaction fee” for that transaction:

…[T]he motion court unreasonably construed the parties’ agreement in arriving at the conclusion that plaintiff was entitled to a “transaction fee” in connection with defendant’s aborted acquisition of a participation interest in the notes. The letter agreement provides that plaintiff is entitled to a “transaction fee” following the consummation or closing of a “transaction,” which it defines as the “sale, transfer or other disposition . . . [of] a portion of the assets, businesses or securities of [defendant].” The acquisition in question was admittedly not a “sale” or “transfer.” Nor can it be considered a “disposition,” as plaintiff contends. The term “disposition” does not appear in isolation in the agreement, but as a catch-all at the end of the phrase “sale, transfer or other disposition.” Thus, under the principle of ejusdem generis, the general language “or other disposition” must be construed as limited in scope by the more specific words “sale” and “transfer” that preceded it … . Miller Tabak + Co LLC v Senetek PLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 04418, 1st Dept 6-17-14

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING VOIR DIRE, RELIED ON THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION THAT THE COMPLAINANT WOULD NOT TESTIFY, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED THE COMPLAINANT WOULD TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
Dismantling, Salvaging or Demolishing a Product Is Not a Foreseeable Use of the Product
THAT THE LADDER WAS NOT DEFECTIVE DID NOT MATTER, THE LADDER WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE LADDER WAS NOT ADEQUATELY SECURED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Encroaching Structure Built to Prevent Excavation-Related Damage to Adjoining Property Is a Trespass
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION, FALL FROM A-FRAME LADDER.
A LOOSE DOOR HANDLE CAUSED THE GLASS DOOR TO SHATTER; DEFENDANTS PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF WHEN THE DOOR HANDLE WAS LAST INSPECTED AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION (FIRST DEPT). ​
Rights of Adopted Children.
IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, WHETHER DEFENDANT REGISTERED NURSE AND DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT GAVE PLAINTIFF THE APPROPRIATE DISCHARGE INSTRUCTIONS AFTER DISOVERING A LUMP IN PLAINTIFF’S BREAST CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE DOCTOR WHO COSIGNED THE PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT’S CHART SHOULD HAVE REVIEWED THE CHART (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

No Assets Left to Distribute—Disposition of a Painting Which Was Part... Under NYC Administrative Code, Abutting Owners Have Duty to Maintain Sidewalk...