of the Grand Manor Regulatory Agreement. Moreover, while the two contracts can be “read together” for interpretation purposes, there is nothing in the Grand Manor Regulatory Agreement that purports to give any rights to Hamilton Equities to enforce any obligations in the Grand Man- or Regulatory Agreement. See Cienega, 194 F.3d at 1243 (“[W]e cannot sustain the ... conclusion that ‘when parties in this case ... entered into the regulatory agreement they also intended to be mutually bound by ... the contemporaneous deed of trust note.’ ”); id. (declining to read obligations into a contemporaneous agreement because “[t]he documents evidence separate agreements between distinct parties.”); Snyder v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., No. 11 Civ. 4496, 2011 WL 6382707, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2011) (<HOLDING>) (collecting cases); Coleman Co., Inc. v.
holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership holding under new york law that while multiple documents executed at the same time and concerning the same subjectmatter are required to be read together under new york law this does not mean that  any   particularized clauses  can be lifted from one document and transferred to another holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding that new york law applies to this matter holding new york state judges to same disqualification standard