MTI/The Image Group, Inc. v. Morning Studios, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

MTI/The Image Group, Inc. v. Morning Studios, Inc.

223 A.D.2d 514, 637 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 713

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 514 (MTI/The Image Group, Inc. v. Morning 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

MTI/The Image Group, Inc. v. Morning Studios, Inc., 223 A.D.2d 514, 637 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered July 27, 1995, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as against defendant-respondent, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs’ claim that they are entitled to judgment for breach of the non-solicitation provisions of paragraph 11 of the Television Services Agreement is without merit, as that provision was to be triggered only by an exercise of defendant’s option to purchase all of MTI’s equipment, which was not alleged. Concerning which party breached the Television Services Agreement first, we agree with the IAS Court that the conflicting affidavits submitted by the parties raise issues of fact that cannot be determined on a motion for summary judgment (see, Boston Concessions Group v Criterion Ctr. Corp., 200 AD2d 543). There is also an issue of fact as to whether the parties intended MTI’s rights under the December 16, 1993 letter agreement to survive execution of the superseding Television Services Agreement. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered July 27, 1995, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as against defendant-respondent, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiffs’ claim that they are entitled to judgment for breach of the non-solicitation provisions of paragraph 11 of the Television Services Agreement is without merit, as that provision was to be triggered only by an exercise of defendant’s option to purchase all of MTI’s equipment, which was not alleged. Concerning which party breached the Television Services Agreement first, we agree with the IAS Court that the conflicting affidavits submitted by the parties raise issues of fact that cannot be determined on a motion for summary judgment (see, Boston Concessions Group v Criterion Ctr. Corp., 200 AD2d 543). There is also an issue of fact as to whether the parties intended MTI’s rights under the December 16, 1993 letter agreement to survive execution of the superseding Television Services Agreement. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 514, 637 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mtithe-image-group-inc-v-morning-studios-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack