Berkowitz v. Magolnick

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming that “evidence outside the four corners of the document” is admissible to modify or contradict a written agreement “only if a court finds an ambiguity in the contract”
• “[A] written agreement that is complete, clear and unambiguous on its face must be enforced according to the plain meaning of its terms[.j” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• “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.”
• \Parol evidence-evidence outside the four corners of the document-is admissible only if a court finds an ambiguity in the contract.\
• ʺParol evidence ‐‐ evidence outside the four corners of the document ‐‐ is admissible only if a court finds an ambiguity in the contract.ʺ

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).