LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

R/S ASSOCIATES et al. v NEW YORK JOB DEVELOPMENT Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: R/S ASSOCIATES et al., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>I02_0048, Cost, Loan, Jda, R/s, Funds, Effective Cost, Bond, Borrowers, Agreement, York Job Development, Ny2d, Contract, Job Development Authority, Ambiguity, Interpretation, Affirm, Publication, Appellants, Charges, Construction, Ittco Sales, Finances, Funding, Judge, Complaint, Principle, Issuance, Payments, Operating , ContentID: 120254617

Case Documents
1 2002-04-30 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 131621
3 pages
TXT
Total Documents: 1 document , 3 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
LOAN
JDA
R/S
FUNDS
EFFECTIVE COST
BOND
BORROWERS
AGREEMENT
YORK JOB DEVELOPMENT
NY2D
CONTRACT
JOB DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AMBIGUITY
INTERPRETATION
AFFIRM
PUBLICATION
APPELLANTS
CHARGES
CONSTRUCTION
ITTCO SALES
FINANCES
FUNDING
JUDGE
COURT
COMPLAINT
PRINCIPLE
ISSUANCE
PAYMENTS
OPERATING


   2 No. 54
   R/S Associates et al.,
   Appellants,
   v.
   New York Job Development Authority,
   Respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________

   2002 NY Int. 48

   April 30, 2002

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Sanford F. Young, for appellants.
   David A. Schulz, for respondent.
     _________________________________________________________________

   WESLEY, J.:

   At issue here is the interpretation of the term "effective cost of
   funds" in a loan agreement between R/S Associates and the New York Job
   Development Authority. Because the term is not ambiguous as used in
   this agreement, we affirm.

   The New York Job Development Authority (JDA) is a public benefit
   corporation created by constitutional amendment in 1961 (L 1961, ch
   443, § 2). Its purpose is to "assist, promote, encourage, develop and
   advance the general prosperity and economic welfare of the people of
   the state and improve their standard of living" (Public Authorities
   Law § 1803(1)). The JDA pursues this goal by providing loans and loan
   guarantees to help businesses expand or build facilities in New York
   or acquire equipment for use in this state (id. at § 1803(2)).
   Borrowers from the JDA generally do not have access to more
   traditional funding sources.

   Unlike a typical commercial lender, the JDA operates as a conduit
   funding organization. It finances loans through the sale of either
   taxable or tax-exempt long-term bonds, guaranteed by the State (see
   Public Authorities Law § 1813). The JDA is self-supporting; all of
   its operating and administrative expenses -- including any loan
   defaults-- are funded through payments made by borrowers.

   R/S Associates, a real estate holding company, and Ittco Sales Co.,
   Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of automotive accessories
SNIPPETS:
  • R/S Associates et al., Appellants, v.
  • This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • At issue here is the interpretation of the term "effective cost of funds" in a loan agreement
  • Because the term is not ambiguous as used in this agreement, we affirm.
  • The JDA pursues this goal by providing loans and loan guarantees to help businesses expand or
  • Borrowers from the JDA generally do not have access to more traditional funding sources.
  • It finances loans through the sale of either taxable or tax-exempt long-term bonds,
  • all of its operating and administrative expenses -- including any loan defaults-- are funded
  • With Ittco Sales Co. as guarantor, R/S Associates sought and obtained a commercial loan from
  • The loan was funded, along with other loans to other borrowers, through the issuance of a
  • After making regular payments on the loan for over a decade, R/S filed a putative class
  • The court held that the JDA properly recovers its operating costs through the interest it
  • noting only that because the term "effective cost of funds" in this agreement is unambiguous
  • We recently reaffirmed this principle, noting that "'when parties set down their agreement in
  • Inc. v Giancontieri,, 77 NY2d 157, 162 )).
  • "'xtrinsic and parol evidence is not admissible to create an ambiguity in a written agreement
  • Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Rosenblatt and Graffeo concur.
  •    |