Brainstorms Internet Marketing, Inc. v. USA Networks, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brainstorms Internet Marketing, Inc. v. USA Networks, Inc.

30 A.D.3d 171, 815 N.Y.S.2d 458

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

DecidedJune 1, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.3d 171 (Brainstorms Internet Marketing, Inc. v. USA Networks, 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

Brainstorms Internet Marketing, Inc. v. USA Networks, Inc., 30 A.D.3d 171, 815 N.Y.S.2d 458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered January 9, 2006, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subject option agreement is clear and unambiguous in requiring that defendant purchaser exercise the option “by delivering written notice thereof’ to plaintiff seller. However, the e-mail that plaintiffs claim was an exercise of the option does not state that defendant was therein exercising the option. As the e-mail does not strictly comply with the terms of the option agreement, it cannot be said as a matter of law that defendant exercised the option (see Tauber v Bankers Trust Co., 230 AD2d 312, 319 [1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 887 [1998]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered January 9, 2006, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The subject option agreement is clear and unambiguous in requiring that defendant purchaser exercise the option “by delivering written notice thereof’ to plaintiff seller. However, the e-mail that plaintiffs claim was an exercise of the option does not state that defendant was therein exercising the option. As the e-mail does not strictly comply with the terms of the option agreement, it cannot be said as a matter of law that defendant exercised the option (see Tauber v Bankers Trust Co., 230 AD2d 312, 319 [1997], lv dismissed 91 NY2d 887 [1998]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 171, 815 N.Y.S.2d 458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brainstorms-internet-marketing-inc-v-usa-networks-inc-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack