Enquire Printing & Publishing Co. v. Vantage Graphics, Inc.

245 A.D.2d 259, 666 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12073
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 1, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 259 (Enquire Printing & Publishing Co. v. Vantage Graphics, 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
Enquire Printing & Publishing Co. v. Vantage Graphics, Inc., 245 A.D.2d 259, 666 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12073 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dye, J.), entered October 15, 1996, which denied its motion for summary judgment against the defendants Goldman Sachs & Co. and Xerox Corporation and granted the cross motions of those defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the defendants Goldman Sachs & Co. and Xerox Corporation.

The Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendants Goldman Sachs & Co. (hereinafter Goldman Sachs) and Xerox Corporation (hereinafter Xerox). Since there was no evidence of an agency relationship between the defendant Vantage Graphics, Inc. (hereinafter Vantage) and either Goldman Sachs or Xerox, the causes of action asserted on this theory against Goldman Sachs and Xerox were properly dismissed (see generally, Lomax v Henry, 119 AD2d 638). Further, since there was evidence of an express contract between the plaintiff and Vantage for the performance of printing services by the plaintiff, the causes of action sounding in quantum meruit asserted against Goldman Sachs and Xerox were also properly dismissed (see, e.g., Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R. R. Co., 70 NY2d 382). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Jesmer v. Retail Magic, Inc.
55 A.D.3d 171 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 A.D.2d 259, 666 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12073, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enquire-printing-publishing-co-v-vantage-graphics-inc-nyappdiv-1997.