Ananta Group, Ltd. v. Moss Shamask, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ananta Group, Ltd. v. Moss Shamask, Ltd.

182 A.D.2d 499, 582 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6072

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 14, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 182 A.D.2d 499 (Ananta Group, Ltd. v. Moss Shamask, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ananta Group, Ltd. v. Moss Shamask, Ltd., 182 A.D.2d 499, 582 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6072 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered October 22, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A review of the Licensing Representation Agreement between the parties demonstrates that plaintiff is not entitled to receive any commission for the assignment and sale of the "Shamask” trademark and goodwill to Mitsukoshi (U.S.A.) Inc. The agreement being unambiguous and clear on its face, affidavits purporting to evidence the intention of the parties "cannot contravene the express intent set forth in the written agreement” (Halkedis v Two E. End Ave. Apt. Corp., 137 AD2d 452, 453, affd 72 NY2d 933). Finally, the distinction between a "sale” and a "license” is not only obvious from the words’ inherent meanings but also from their usage in the respective contracts. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane A. Lebedeff, J.), entered October 22, 1991, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A review of the Licensing Representation Agreement between the parties demonstrates that plaintiff is not entitled to receive any commission for the assignment and sale of the "Shamask” trademark and goodwill to Mitsukoshi (U.S.A.) Inc. The agreement being unambiguous and clear on its face, affidavits purporting to evidence the intention of the parties "cannot contravene the express intent set forth in the written agreement” (Halkedis v Two E. End Ave. Apt. Corp., 137 AD2d 452, 453, affd 72 NY2d 933). Finally, the distinction between a "sale” and a "license” is not only obvious from the words’ inherent meanings but also from their usage in the respective contracts. Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 A.D.2d 499, 582 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ananta-group-ltd-v-moss-shamask-ltd-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack