Court Opinion

ID: 9875281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:29:18.362715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:58.696462
License: Public Domain

Friedman, J.R, and Richter, J.,
concur in a separate memorandum by Richter, J., as follows: In the prior appeal, I joined the concurring opinion which concluded that because the provision in question is reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation, its meaning may not properly be determined as a matter of law (127 AD3d 480, 484 [1st Dept 2015]). Although I continue to believe the disputed term is ambiguous, I recognize that that issue was expressly decided adversely to defendants, and thus is law of the case warranting summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor.