Opinion ID: 1196085
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Law Applicable to Contract Interpretation

Text: The April 9 agreement lacks a choice-of-law clause. The district court assumed, without objection from the parties, that New York law governed the agreement's interpretation. We do the same. See Schwimmer v. Allstate Ins. Co., 176 F.3d 648, 650 (2d Cir.1999) (finding the choice-of-law issue waived when the defendant fail[ed] to bring to the attention of the district court the potential applicability of [another jurisdiction's] law); cf. Schiavone v. Pearce, 79 F.3d 248, 252 (2d Cir. 1996) (A purchase agreement entered into in New York, with closing contemplated in New York, is to be interpreted under New York law.).