Clayco Foods, Inc. v. Service Terminals, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clayco Foods, Inc. v. Service Terminals, Inc.

29 A.D.2d 645, 287 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4757

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 645 (Clayco Foods, Inc. v. Service Terminals, 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

Clayco Foods, Inc. v. Service Terminals, Inc., 29 A.D.2d 645, 287 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered July 7, 1967, denying defendants’ application for judgment dismissing the first and third causes of action on the ground of insufficiency, and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to the individual defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motion granted. The first cause of action is dismissed with leave to plaintiff to apply to Special Term for permission to serve an amended complaint. (Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 23 A D 2d 827, 25 A D 2d 133; CPLR 3211, subd. [e]; Andlou Props, v. Grcuyck, 24 A D 2d 716; Cyg-Knit Mills v. Denton Sleeping Garment Mills, 26 A D 2d 800.) The allegations in the affidavit of plaintiff’s president suggest that in prior oral negotiations plaintiff in effect agreed to have all of its warehousing needs supplied by defendant corporation and no other corporation. The said cause of action fails to so allege. The documents incorporated in the first cause of action do not spell out a mutually binding obligation. The third cause of action fails to allege any omission or act of commission except a breach of contract. (See Albemarle Theatre v. Bayberry Bealty Gorp., 27 A D 2d 172.) In addition, it fails to allege special damages. (Morrison v. National Broadcasting Co., 19 N Y 2d 453, 458.) The complaint is dismissed as to the individual defendant on the ground.that it appears the basic contracts were entered into by the individual in behalf of a disclosed principal, the defendant corporation. (Ell Dee Clothing Co. v. Ma/rsh, 247 N". Y. 392.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, McGivern and McNally, JJ.

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

Order, entered July 7, 1967, denying defendants’ application for judgment dismissing the first and third causes of action on the ground of insufficiency, and for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to the individual defendants, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellants, and the motion granted. The first cause of action is dismissed with leave to plaintiff to apply to Special Term for permission to serve an amended complaint. (Cushman & Wakefield v. John David, Inc., 23 A D 2d 827, 25 A D 2d 133; CPLR 3211, subd. [e]; Andlou Props, v. Grcuyck, 24 A D 2d 716; Cyg-Knit Mills v. Denton Sleeping Garment Mills, 26 A D 2d 800.) The allegations in the affidavit of plaintiff’s president suggest that in prior oral negotiations plaintiff in effect agreed to have all of its warehousing needs supplied by defendant corporation and no other corporation. The said cause of action fails to so allege. The documents incorporated in the first cause of action do not spell out a mutually binding obligation. The third cause of action fails to allege any omission or act of commission except a breach of contract. (See Albemarle Theatre v. Bayberry Bealty Gorp., 27 A D 2d 172.) In addition, it fails to allege special damages. (Morrison v. National Broadcasting Co., 19 N Y 2d 453, 458.) The complaint is dismissed as to the individual defendant on the ground.that it appears the basic contracts were entered into by the individual in behalf of a disclosed principal, the defendant corporation. (Ell Dee Clothing Co. v. Ma/rsh, 247 N". Y. 392.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Stevens, Capozzoli, McGivern and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 645, 287 N.Y.S.2d 101, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clayco-foods-inc-v-service-terminals-inc-nyappdiv-1968.