Global Events LLC v. Manhattan Center Studios, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Global Events LLC v. Manhattan Center Studios, Inc.

123 A.D.3d 449, 998 N.Y.S.2d 336

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2014

Docket13664 651081/10

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 449 (Global Events LLC v. Manhattan Center Studios, 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

Global Events LLC v. Manhattan Center Studios, Inc., 123 A.D.3d 449, 998 N.Y.S.2d 336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered June 19, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The breach of contract claim was properly dismissed. The parties had an express written agreement with regard to booking dates at defendant’s venue. Defendant concededly was not in breach of that agreement. Plaintiff attempted to find among various subsequent emails between the parties a “new” agreement that materially modified the terms of the express agreement. This attempt failed in light of the “merger clause” in the express agreement, which precluded modification of its terms absent “a writing signed by both parties” (see Daiichi Seihan *450 USA v Infinity USA, 214 AD2d 487, 488 [1st Dept 1995]). Given that the parties’ express, written agreement covered the same subject matter as the alleged subsequent agreement, plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim was also properly dismissed (IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d 132, 142 [2009]). Finally, while plaintiffs arguments are unavailing, they are not so devoid of merit as to be frivolous. As such, defendant’s request for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130 is denied.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barbara R. Kapnick, J.), entered June 19, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The breach of contract claim was properly dismissed. The parties had an express written agreement with regard to booking dates at defendant’s venue. Defendant concededly was not in breach of that agreement. Plaintiff attempted to find among various subsequent emails between the parties a “new” agreement that materially modified the terms of the express agreement. This attempt failed in light of the “merger clause” in the express agreement, which precluded modification of its terms absent “a writing signed by both parties” (see Daiichi Seihan *450 USA v Infinity USA, 214 AD2d 487, 488 [1st Dept 1995]). Given that the parties’ express, written agreement covered the same subject matter as the alleged subsequent agreement, plaintiffs unjust enrichment claim was also properly dismissed (IDT Corp. v Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., 12 NY3d 132, 142 [2009]). Finally, while plaintiffs arguments are unavailing, they are not so devoid of merit as to be frivolous. As such, defendant’s request for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130 is denied.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Sweeny, DeGrasse, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 449, 998 N.Y.S.2d 336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/global-events-llc-v-manhattan-center-studios-inc-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack