Ithaca Peripherals, Inc. v. Sequoia Pacific Systems Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ithaca Peripherals, Inc. v. Sequoia Pacific Systems Corp.

156 A.D.2d 1005, 549 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16210

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A.D.2d 1005 (Ithaca Peripherals, Inc. v. Sequoia Pacific Systems Corp.) 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

Ithaca Peripherals, Inc. v. Sequoia Pacific Systems Corp., 156 A.D.2d 1005, 549 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law with costs and plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in finding that defendant had raised factual and legal issues requiring a trial with respect to liability. Plaintiff sued for breach of a contract to purchase 4,000 printer assemblies. Defendant conceded that such a contract had been entered into but contended that it had been superseded by subsequent contracts between plaintiff and third parties and that defendant was thereby released from further liability to plaintiff. Defendant failed even to allege, much less show, that there was any agreement by plaintiff to accept new contracts with others for the purpose of satisfying defendant’s contractual obligation, or that plaintiff had otherwise lost its right to enforce the contract. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability therefore should have been granted. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law with costs and plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in finding that defendant had raised factual and legal issues requiring a trial with respect to liability. Plaintiff sued for breach of a contract to purchase 4,000 printer assemblies. Defendant conceded that such a contract had been entered into but contended that it had been superseded by subsequent contracts between plaintiff and third parties and that defendant was thereby released from further liability to plaintiff. Defendant failed even to allege, much less show, that there was any agreement by plaintiff to accept new contracts with others for the purpose of satisfying defendant’s contractual obligation, or that plaintiff had otherwise lost its right to enforce the contract. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on liability therefore should have been granted. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Ricotta, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 1005, 549 N.Y.S.2d 289, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ithaca-peripherals-inc-v-sequoia-pacific-systems-corp-nyappdiv-1989.