CAMMEBY'S EQUITY HOLDINGS LLC, plf-res, v. MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC. def-ap

10125-10126-10127. CAMMEBY'S EQUITY HOLDINGS LLC, plf-res, v. MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC. def-ap — Latham & Watkins LLP, Wasington, DC (Daniel Meron of the bar of the District of Columbia, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for Mariner Heath Care, Inc., ap — Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, New York (Martin H. Samson of counsel), for National Senior Care, Inc. and Harry Grunstein, ap — Dechert LLP, New York (Steven A. Engel of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered March 16, 2012, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Orders, same court and Justice, entered September 20, 2012 and November 13, 2012, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendants' respective motions to renew, unanimously affirmed, with costs, and appeal from the November 13, 2012 order otherwise dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

10125-10126-10127. CAMMEBY’S EQUITY HOLDINGS LLC, plf-res, v. MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC. def-ap — Latham & Watkins LLP, Wasington, DC (Daniel Meron of the bar of the District of Columbia, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for Mariner Heath Care, Inc., ap — Davidoff Hutcher & Citron LLP, New York (Martin H. Samson of counsel), for National Senior Care, Inc. and Harry Grunstein, ap — Dechert LLP, New York (Steven A. Engel of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered March 16, 2012, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Orders, same court and Justice, entered September 20, 2012 and November 13, 2012, which, to the extent appealable, denied defendants’ respective motions to renew, unanimously affirmed, with costs, and appeal from the November 13, 2012 order otherwise dismissed, without costs, as taken from a nonappealable paper.

Plaintiff’s option agreement unambiguously provided that the option was granted in exchange for mutual covenants, and therefore parol evidence was inadmissible to show that a loan was the actual consideration. Moreover, had the sophisticated parties intended to make the loan a condition to enforceability of the option, they could have included a provision to that effect (see Schron v. Troutman Saunders LLP, 20 NY3d 430 [2013]). Contrary to defendants’ contention, it makes no difference that, unlike the circumstance in Schron, the issue was resolved after disclosure, because whether an agreement is ambiguous is a question of law to be resolved by the court (see W.W.W. Assoc. v. Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]).

CAMMEBY'S EQUITY HOLDINGS LLC, plf-res, v. MARINER HEALTH CARE, INC. def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal