Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)

Citation: Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Parent Document: Edge Management Consulting, Inc. v. Blank, 25 A.D.3d 364 (2006)
Jurisdiction: New York (state)
Effective Date: 2006-01-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5836114/edge-management-consulting-inc-v-blank/ ↗

Full Text

800 chars

Irmas asserts that she was under no obligation to perform for the Blank Trust’s benefit and that her obligations under the alteration agreement were neither to satisfy a money debt, nor indicative of a clear indication to provide the Blank Trust with anything more than an incidental benefit. In determining *369whether a third party was an intended beneficiary to a contract, the actual intent of the parties is critical. The best evidence of the contracting parties’ intent is the language of the agreement itself (see Chu v Dunkin' Donuts Inc., 27 F Supp 2d 171 [1998]; Zelber v Lewoc, 6 AD3d 1043, 1045 [2004]). On its face, the alteration agreement clearly indicates that the indemnity provision applied “to all persons, including, without limitation, the owners of other units in the Building.”

Other Sections in This Document (22)

Full Text