It is axiomatic that "when parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should . . . be enforced according to its terms." (Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v 538 Madison Realty Co, 1 NY3d 470, 475 [2004]; WWW Assocs v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990].) The question of whether a writing is ambiguous is one of law to be resolved by the courts. (Van Wagner Adv Corp v S & M Enters, 67 NY2d 186 [1986].) A contract is unambiguous if the language it uses has "a definite and precise meaning, unattended by danger of misconception in the purport of the [agreement] itself, and concerning which there is no reasonable basis for a difference of opinion." (Breed v Ins Co of North America, 46 NY2d 351, 355 [1995]; Norma Reynolds Realty Inc v Edelman, 2006 NY Slip Op 4261 [2d Dept 2006].) The rules governing the construction of ambiguous contracts are not triggered unless the court first finds an ambiguity. (R/S Assoc v New [*5]York Job Development Authority, 98 NY2d 29 [2002]; Breed v Ins Co of North America, 46 NY2d 351 [1995].)
One doctrine governing the construction of ambiguous contracts is contra proferentum, which holds that ambiguities in a contractual instrument will be resolved against the party who prepared it and in favor of the party who had no voice in the selection of its language. (Jacobson v Sassower, 66 NY2d 991 [1985]; 151 West Associates v Printsiples Fabric Corp, 61 NY2d 732 [1984].) This doctrine is inapplicable where both parties participated in negotiating the contract's terms. (Coliseum Towers Assocs v County of Nassau, 2 AD3d 562 [2d Dept 2003].)