Chapco, Inc. v. Joyce International, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chapco, Inc. v. Joyce International, Inc.

186 A.D.2d 470, 589 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12156

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 470 (Chapco, Inc. v. Joyce International, 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

Chapco, Inc. v. Joyce International, Inc., 186 A.D.2d 470, 589 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pécora, J.), entered on or about July 24, 1991, which, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs first and second causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, despite a complete written agreement under which a 30-day payment term was imposed, seeks to introduce parol evidence that the parties intended a 60-to-90-day payment term. The IAS Court correctly found such parol evidence to be inadmissible. No additional term may be evidenced by parol evidence that is inconsistent with the written terms of the agreement (compare, Whirlpool Corp. v Regis Leasing Corp., 29 AD2d 395, 398, with Hunt Foods & Indus, v Doliner, 26 AD2d 41, 42).

Plaintiffs argument that the agreement was ambiguous, made for the first time on appeal, may not now be considered. (See, City of New York v Stack, 178 AD2d 355, lv denied 80 NY2d 753.)

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pécora, J.), entered on or about July 24, 1991, which, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs first and second causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, despite a complete written agreement under which a 30-day payment term was imposed, seeks to introduce parol evidence that the parties intended a 60-to-90-day payment term. The IAS Court correctly found such parol evidence to be inadmissible. No additional term may be evidenced by parol evidence that is inconsistent with the written terms of the agreement (compare, Whirlpool Corp. v Regis Leasing Corp., 29 AD2d 395, 398, with Hunt Foods & Indus, v Doliner, 26 AD2d 41, 42).

Plaintiffs argument that the agreement was ambiguous, made for the first time on appeal, may not now be considered. (See, City of New York v Stack, 178 AD2d 355, lv denied 80 NY2d 753.)

We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 470, 589 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapco-inc-v-joyce-international-inc-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack