Food Service Marketing, Inc. v. National Foods, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Food Service Marketing, Inc. v. National Foods, Inc.

225 A.D.2d 477, 639 N.Y.2d 378, 639 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3163

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 477 (Food Service Marketing, Inc. v. National Foods, 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

Food Service Marketing, Inc. v. National Foods, Inc., 225 A.D.2d 477, 639 N.Y.2d 378, 639 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The written brokerage agreement, memorializing the parties’ existing relationship, was drafted by defendant so as to include certain exclusivity provisions, with the end result that plaintiff would receive nearly $1,500,000 in largely unearned commissions, whereas plaintiff had only received $1,068.89 during the similar sales period a year before. On this record, the IAS Court properly determined defendant had overcome the heavy presumption that the written agreement represented the parties’ intentions (see, Backer Mgt. Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 219) and that the relevant portion of the written agreement was the product of mistake on defendant’s part. In addition to defendant’s unilateral mistake in drafting the agreement, plaintiff endeavored to commit a fraud in its efforts to carry out the clearly mistaken writing (see, 60 NY Jur 2d, Fraud and Deceit, § 9; Falk v Goodman, 7 NY2d 87, 91), and thus reformation is the appropriate equitable remedy to defeat plaintiff’s claim and prevent unjust enrichment (Rosenblum v Manufacturers Trust Co., 270 NY 79, 84-85). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

The written brokerage agreement, memorializing the parties’ existing relationship, was drafted by defendant so as to include certain exclusivity provisions, with the end result that plaintiff would receive nearly $1,500,000 in largely unearned commissions, whereas plaintiff had only received $1,068.89 during the similar sales period a year before. On this record, the IAS Court properly determined defendant had overcome the heavy presumption that the written agreement represented the parties’ intentions (see, Backer Mgt. Corp. v Acme Quilting Co., 46 NY2d 211, 219) and that the relevant portion of the written agreement was the product of mistake on defendant’s part. In addition to defendant’s unilateral mistake in drafting the agreement, plaintiff endeavored to commit a fraud in its efforts to carry out the clearly mistaken writing (see, 60 NY Jur 2d, Fraud and Deceit, § 9; Falk v Goodman, 7 NY2d 87, 91), and thus reformation is the appropriate equitable remedy to defeat plaintiff’s claim and prevent unjust enrichment (Rosenblum v Manufacturers Trust Co., 270 NY 79, 84-85). Concur— Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 477, 639 N.Y.2d 378, 639 N.Y.S.2d 378, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/food-service-marketing-inc-v-national-foods-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack