Contracts are intended to bring certainty and clarity to commercial relationships, yet disputes often arise when written terms leave room for more than one reasonable interpretation. Under New York law, the question of ambiguity can determine whether a case is resolved on the face of the agreement or proceeds into litigation over extrinsic evidence and party intent.

By: Jonathan H. Freiberger A basic tenet of contract interpretation is that “agreements are construed in accord with the parties’ intent.” Greenfield v. Philles Records, Inc. , 98 N.Y.2d 562, 569 (2002) (citations omitted); see also SM Owner, LLC v. Envoy Towers Co., L.P. , 245 A.D.3d 973 (2 nd Dept. 2026). It is equally fundamental that the “best evidence of what parties to a written agreement intend is what they say in their writing.” Greenfield , 98 N.Y.2d at 569 ( quotin

In Kim v. XP Sec., LLC, the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the denial of summary judgment in a wrongful termination action, reiterating settled principles of contract interpretation: clear, unambiguous agreements between sophisticated, counseled parties are enforced according to their plain meaning, without recourse to extrinsic evidence.

In Alphasense, Inc. v. Financial Tech. Partners LP, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00185 (1st Dept. Jan. 15, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department, considered whether Plaintiffs validly terminated an advisory agreement with Defendants under a “Key Man” provision.

In Romano v. Kelly, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed reformation of a settlement agreement based on clear and convincing evidence of mutual mistake.

In any contract dispute, “it is necessary to consider the language in the contract, for that is what controls the parties’ rights and responsibilities.” For this reason, New York courts “are guided by the standard rules of contractual interpretation, which provide that ‘a written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms.’”

In today’s article, we explore principles of contract interpretation and judicial dissolution of partnerships under New York law. As we discuss, courts interpret contracts based on the written intent of the parties and only consider extrinsic evidence when ambiguity exists.

In today’s article, we examine Harris v. Dream Volunteers, a case in which the court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of contract interpretation: contracts that are clear and unambiguous must be enforced according to their plain terms.

In today’s article, we examine BLDG 44 Developers LLC v. Pace Companies N.Y., LLC, a case involving consequential damages.

In today’s article, we discuss how courts interpret arbitration clauses in contracts by focusing on Perle Tech. Inc. v. United Apollo Intl. Inc., a case recently decided in Supreme Court, Kings County. Despite the use of the word “may” in the arbitration clause, the court held that arbitration was mandatory, not permissive, due to other contract provisions indicating clear intent to arbitrate.

When parties negotiate the terms of a contract, they cannot account for every contingency or event that may affect performance. To be sure, they try. But, it is simply not possible to account for every occurrence that might arise during the course of the contract. This inability, therefore, gives the parties wide latitude in the performance and enforcement of their contractual obligations. Underlying this discretion is the duty to act in good faith and with fair dealing.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber After a merger, which agreement controls when both companies have pre-existing contracts with a common third party? In May 2016, Stamford-based Charter Communications Inc. (“Charter”) completed its acquisition of Time Warner Cable (“TWC”), making it the second largest cable provider behind Comcast Corporation. At the time of the acquisition, TWC was the larger of the two companies. As such, TWC was able to negotiate more favorable rates and terms on ca

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Is it a breach of contract to bypass an agreed-upon, independent alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) process and commence an arbitration proceeding elsewhere? When two companies enter into a contract, it’s common to include language wherein both parties consent to having any disputes related to the contract decided by an agreed-upon, neutral third party, rather than by a judge in a lengthy, formal court proceeding. The process of ADR-- which may be by