Opinion ID: 205969
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: New York General Construction Law

Text: New York General Construction Law Section 25 provides in relevant part that: Where a contract by its terms authorizes or requires the payment of money or performance of a condition on a Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday ... unless the contract expressly or impliedly indicates a different intent, such payment may be made or condition performed on the next succeeding business day. N.Y. Gen. Constr. Law § 25. According to the terms of LTIP Section 6(d)(ii), Fishoff's options could only be exercised on an Exercise Date, which was defined in Section 2 of the LTIP, in pertinent part, as the last day of any month. In 2008, November 30 was a Sunday. Accordingly, Fishoff personally delivered his notice of intent to exercise his options on Monday, December 1, 2008, and the district court deemed this a timely exercise pursuant to New York General Construction Law Section 25. Coty argues that the district court's conclusion was in error because the LTIP does not require an optionee to deliver his notice of intent to exercise on an Exercise Date; it only limits the day on which such options can be processed. The plain language of Section 25, however, is not limited to required acts; it also reaches acts that are authorized. Plainly, the LTIP authorized the filing of a notice of intent to exercise on an Exercise Date; Coty does not argue otherwise. Under the terms of the LTIP, the filing of a notice of intent to exercise one's options is a condition to the exercise of such options. Because there is no other provision of the LTIP that indicates the intent of the parties different from the norm provided by Section 25 of the New York General Construction Law, impliedly or explicitly, we conclude the district court committed no error in holding that Fishoff gave timely notice for a November exercise.