Harmonic Textiles Co. v. Stuart Alan Fashions, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harmonic Textiles Co. v. Stuart Alan Fashions, Ltd.

249 A.D.2d 228, 671 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4755

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 30, 1998·Published

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered February 8, 1996, awarding plaintiff damages for breach of contract and dismissing deféndant’s counterclaim for fraud, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 23, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The parol evidence on which defendant relies, purporting to demonstrate that the parties’ actual agreement was for plaintiff to manufacture garments for defendants at a particular cost, was properly rejected by the IAS Court. The agreement for the purchase of fabric on which plaintiff sues does not mention any such agreement and contains a merger clause such that the parol evidence would vary or add to the subject contract (see, Katz v American Tech. Indus., 96 AD2d 932, 932-933). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered February 8, 1996, awarding plaintiff damages for breach of contract and dismissing deféndant’s counterclaim for fraud, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 23, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The parol evidence on which defendant relies, purporting to demonstrate that the parties’ actual agreement was for plaintiff to manufacture garments for defendants at a particular cost, was properly rejected by the IAS Court. The agreement for the purchase of fabric on which plaintiff sues does not mention any such agreement and contains a merger clause such that the parol evidence would vary or add to the subject contract (see, Katz v American Tech. Indus., 96 AD2d 932, 932-933). We have considered defendant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.

Harmonic Textiles Co. v. Stuart Alan Fashions, Ltd., 249 A.D.2d 228, 671 N.Y.S.2d 651, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

249 A.D.2d 228 (Harmonic Textiles Co. v. Stuart Alan Fashions, Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related