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

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 501 (Beslow v. Novell, Inc.) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 501, 662 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beslow-v-novell-inc-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack