Tax

Tramco Industries, Inc., Appellant, v. Broad Hollow Associates, Defendant-Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff. Town of Huntington, Third-Party Defendant

30 A.D.2d 522·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1968·NY

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Tramco Industries, Inc., Appellant, v. Broad Hollow Associates, Defendant-Respondent and Third-Party Plaintiff. Town of Huntington, Third-Party Defendant. [MAJORITY] Order, entered February 7, 1968, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to the plaintiff-appellant, and the motion granted. Parol evidence is admissible to resolve an ambiguity, not to create one. The tax clause is clear both in its language and its application. Its interpretation is a question of law for the court. The year 1966/67 was the “first year after the full assessed value * * * has been determined”. (Tobin v. Union News Co., 18 A D 2d 243, affd. 13 N Y 2d 1155.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McGivern and McNally, JJ.