Court Declines To Rely On Expert Opinion Where Contract Is Unambiguous

Posted: July 14, 2025 / Written by: Jeffrey M. Eilender, Thomas A. Kissane, Samuel L. Butt, Joshua Wurtzel, Channing J. Turner / Categories Commercial, Summary Judgment, Motion to Amend

Court Declines To Rely On Expert Opinion Where Contract Is Unambiguous

On June 15, 2025, Justice Andrea Masley granted Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied defendant’s motion to amend to file a second amended answer with counterclaim, concluding, as part of the Court’s analysis, that she could not rely on defendant’s expert opinion in A-US GAL 1, L.P.. v. National Air Cargo Group, Inc., Index No. 655890/2023. The Court explained:

It is undisputed that defendant returned the engines in unserviceable condition and one engine was returned to the wrong place all in violation of the of the lease. (NYSCEF 90, August 8, 2021 email between parties; NYSCEF 68, Nat’l Responses to First Set of RFAs Nos. 4, 9-12; NYSCEF 70 and 71, Defendant’s spreadsheets; NYSCEF 76, Equipment Schedule 16.) Section 9(b)[] of the lease requires engines to be serviceable when returned at the conclusion of the lease, while §9(a) requires the engines to be returned to a place specified in the Equipment Schedule. (NYSCEF 3, Engine Lease General Terms Agreement.) “[W]hen parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should as a rule be enforced according to its terms,” and “[e]vidence outside the four corners of the document as to what was really intended but unstated or misstated is generally inadmissible to add to or vary the writing.” (W.W.W. Assocs., Inc. v. Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990].) Defendant does not argue that there is an ambiguity[] and thus the court may not rely on defendant’s parol evidence e.g. defendant’s expert opinion. (Schron v Troutman Sanders LLP, 20 NY3d 430, 436 [2013] [“Parol evidence—evidence outside the four corners of the document—is admissible only if a court finds an ambiguity in the contract. As a general rule, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to alter or add a provision to a written agreement. This rule gives “stability to commercial transactions by safeguarding against fraudulent claims, perjury, death of witnesses ... infirmity of memory ... [and] the fear that the jury will improperly evaluate the extrinsic evidence.” [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].)

(Footnotes omitted).

Contact the Commercial Division Blog Committee at commercialdivisionblog@schlamstone.com if you or a client have questions concerning summary judgment motions or motions to amend.