Opinion ID: 2530632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Added Terms

Text: Under New York law, courts may not by construction add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used and thereby make a new contract for the parties under the guise of interpreting the writing. Riverside S. Planning Corp. v. CRP/Extell Riverside, L.P., 13 N.Y.3d 398, 892 N.Y.S.2d 303, 307, 920 N.E.2d 359 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). [C]ourts should be extremely reluctant to interpret an agreement as impliedly stating something which the parties have neglected to specifically include. Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 N.Y.3d 470, 775 N.Y.S.2d 765, 807 N.E.2d 876, 879 (2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this action, the district court improperly added material terms to the description of the UCC that altered the agreement of the parties. First, the district court concluded as a matter of law that the contract unambiguously provides that AT & T could recover amounts AT & T must pay into the USF program, and no more.  Aplt.App. at 1607 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court indisputably added the phrase and no more when interpreting the CSA and the CSG. Although the majority claims that this phrase merely emphasized the operative promise to collect via the UCC charge those amounts `it must pay' into the USF, Maj. Op. at 1206, this addition artificially eliminated AT & T's flexibility under § 201(b) to collect a reasonable amountan amount that could be more or less than its USF contribution in any given time period. A concession of this magnitude would certainly have produced more fanfare than is evident from the first sentence of the Description section. Second, the district court implied that AT & T had promised to balance the UCC amounts it recovered with the amounts it was required to pay over a reasonable period of time. Aplt.App. at 1614. The district court claimed that it could imply a reasonable time of performance because not all terms of a contract need be fixed with absolute certainty. Id. at 1613 (quoting Express Indus. & Terminal Corp. v. New York State Dep't of Transp., 93 N.Y.2d 584, 693 N.Y.S.2d 857, 715 N.E.2d 1050, 1053 (1999)). The district court interpreted this reasonable period of time to consist of a period of many billing cycles. [10] Id. at 1614. Under New York law, in certain situations, courts may supply a reasonable term to a contract. What constitutes a reasonable time ... depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Savasta v. 470 Newport Assocs., 82 N.Y.2d 763, 603 N.Y.S.2d 821, 623 N.E.2d 1171, 1172 (1993). Courts typically supply a reasonable time period if the contractual performance was inordinately delayed or the purpose of the contract suggests a reasonable time frame. See, e.g., id. at 1172-73 (holding that a twenty-two month delay in providing notice of the termination of the partnership was unreasonable); Haines v. City of New York, 41 N.Y.2d 769, 396 N.Y.S.2d 155, 364 N.E.2d 820, 822-23 (1977) (viewing the surrounding circumstances, in a case involving the maintenance of a sewage disposal facility, and inferring that a reasonable period of time was the length of time that the city needed or desired the water treated at that facility). It is patent that neither circumstance is present here: there is no issue of inordinate delay and the overarching telephone-service purpose of the contracts tells us nothing about the possible nature of any reasonable period for effecting a true-up of UCC chargeswhy many billing cycles, as opposed to a day, week, month, quarter, year, or the duration of an individual consumer's contract? And, on this record, I can discern no reason why it would be appropriate to move beyond these typical scenarios where the courts have employed reasonable-time-period inferences. Therefore even assuming, arguendo, that AT & T had promised to balance the UCC amounts it recovered with its USF contributions, the district court erred by reading into the contracts a reasonable time period by which AT & T was obliged to effectuate that balancing.