Beslow v. Novell, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Beslow v. Novell, Inc.

242 A.D.2d 501, 662 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9261

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 30, 1997·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered July 12, 1996, which dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the motion court that the documents relied upon by plaintiffs, including defendant’s License Agreement, evidence only the existence of a free customer support program, not a contract to provide such a service perpetually, and, as the duration of the program cannot be fairly and reasonably supplied by implication, and as the program was one for services on which a reasonable time duration cannot be imposed, the program was terminable at will (see, Warner-Lambert Pharm. Co. v John J. Reynolds, Inc., 178 F Supp 655, 661, affd 280 F2d 197; Haines v City of New York, 41 NY2d 769, 771-773). Leave to replead was properly denied as the proposed amendment lacks merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered July 12, 1996, which dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the motion court that the documents relied upon by plaintiffs, including defendant’s License Agreement, evidence only the existence of a free customer support program, not a contract to provide such a service perpetually, and, as the duration of the program cannot be fairly and reasonably supplied by implication, and as the program was one for services on which a reasonable time duration cannot be imposed, the program was terminable at will (see, Warner-Lambert Pharm. Co. v John J. Reynolds, Inc., 178 F Supp 655, 661, affd 280 F2d 197; Haines v City of New York, 41 NY2d 769, 771-773). Leave to replead was properly denied as the proposed amendment lacks merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Wallach, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Beslow v. Novell, Inc., 242 A.D.2d 501, 662 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

242 A.D.2d 501 (Beslow v. Novell, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related