Morwitz v. De Angelis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morwitz v. De Angelis

2017 NY Slip Op 8200, 155 A.D.3d 514, 66 N.Y.S.3d 667

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2017

Docket5017 600007/10

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 8200 (Morwitz v. De Angelis) 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

Morwitz v. De Angelis, 2017 NY Slip Op 8200, 155 A.D.3d 514, 66 N.Y.S.3d 667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered September 28, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the breach of contract and General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 causes of action against defendant Central Plumbing Specialties Co., Inc. (Central), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the determination of the fact finding court, based largely on its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, that plaintiffs’ claims under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 are without merit, we are obliged to defer to it (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]). The claims for breach of contract, based on the allegation that defendants promised to deliver an “Italian” cabinet, was correctly dismissed as barred by the parol evidence rule, inasmuch as the parties’ integrated and detailed written agreement did not specify that the cabinet was required to be “Italian” (see Matter of Primex Intl. Corp. v Wal-Mart Stores, 89 NY2d 594, 600 [1997]; Braten v Bankers Trust Co., 60 NY2d 155, 162 [1983]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arthur F. Engoron, J.), entered September 28, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the breach of contract and General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 causes of action against defendant Central Plumbing Specialties Co., Inc. (Central), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since a fair interpretation of the evidence supports the determination of the fact finding court, based largely on its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, that plaintiffs’ claims under General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 are without merit, we are obliged to defer to it (see Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495 [1992]). The claims for breach of contract, based on the allegation that defendants promised to deliver an “Italian” cabinet, was correctly dismissed as barred by the parol evidence rule, inasmuch as the parties’ integrated and detailed written agreement did not specify that the cabinet was required to be “Italian” (see Matter of Primex Intl. Corp. v Wal-Mart Stores, 89 NY2d 594, 600 [1997]; Braten v Bankers Trust Co., 60 NY2d 155, 162 [1983]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Gische, Kapnick, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 8200, 155 A.D.3d 514, 66 N.Y.S.3d 667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morwitz-v-de-angelis-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack