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.

248 A.D.2d 315, 670 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3356

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 315 (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., 248 A.D.2d 315, 670 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered September 16, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was properly denied. The same issues of fact as were found on the prior summary judgment motion remain unresolved. A question of fact also exists as to whether a scrivener’s error was responsible for the failure to expressly specify in paragraph 15 of the agreement (Curing Provision) that the producer, Morning, as well as MTI, the supplier, was required to make a written demand “upon the other” prior to making any claim “that the other” has breached any of the provisions of the contract. The language of the remainder of the provision that makes express reference to the receipt by each party of such written demand and the respective time periods within which each may cure militates against a summary determination that the omission of Morning in the earlier clause was intended.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered September 16, 1997, which denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was properly denied. The same issues of fact as were found on the prior summary judgment motion remain unresolved. A question of fact also exists as to whether a scrivener’s error was responsible for the failure to expressly specify in paragraph 15 of the agreement (Curing Provision) that the producer, Morning, as well as MTI, the supplier, was required to make a written demand “upon the other” prior to making any claim “that the other” has breached any of the provisions of the contract. The language of the remainder of the provision that makes express reference to the receipt by each party of such written demand and the respective time periods within which each may cure militates against a summary determination that the omission of Morning in the earlier clause was intended.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 315, 670 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mtithe-image-group-inc-v-morning-studios-inc-nyappdiv-1998.