North American Hyperbaric Center v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

North American Hyperbaric Center v. City of New York

198 A.D.2d 148, 604 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10812

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 198 A.D.2d 148 (North American Hyperbaric Center v. City of New York) 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

North American Hyperbaric Center v. City of New York, 198 A.D.2d 148, 604 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10812 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about July 23, 1992, which, inter alia, denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as against defendant Bronx Municipal Hospital Center of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation ("HHC”), and which granted the cross-motion by defendants HHC and the City of New York ("the City”) (collectively "defendants”) for summary judgment dis[149]*149missing the plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court recognized that after the expiration of their contract, the parties’ conduct could have evidenced their mutual assent to a new contract embracing the same provisions and terms as their prior contract, since it is well settled in New York that "[w]hen an agreement expires by its terms, if, without more, the parties continue to perform as theretofore, an implication arises that they have mutually assented to a new contract containing the same provisions as the old” (Martin v Campanaro, 156 F2d 127, 129, cert denied 329 US 759, citing, inter alia, New York Tel. Co. v Jamestown Tel. Corp., 282 NY 365). Plaintiffs attempt to avoid the volume based reduction of fee is therefore rejected.

We have reviewed the plaintiffs remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about July 23, 1992, which, inter alia, denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as against defendant Bronx Municipal Hospital Center of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation ("HHC”), and which granted the cross-motion by defendants HHC and the City of New York ("the City”) (collectively "defendants”) for summary judgment dis[149]*149missing the plaintiffs complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court recognized that after the expiration of their contract, the parties’ conduct could have evidenced their mutual assent to a new contract embracing the same provisions and terms as their prior contract, since it is well settled in New York that "[w]hen an agreement expires by its terms, if, without more, the parties continue to perform as theretofore, an implication arises that they have mutually assented to a new contract containing the same provisions as the old” (Martin v Campanaro, 156 F2d 127, 129, cert denied 329 US 759, citing, inter alia, New York Tel. Co. v Jamestown Tel. Corp., 282 NY 365). Plaintiffs attempt to avoid the volume based reduction of fee is therefore rejected.

We have reviewed the plaintiffs remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 148, 604 N.Y.S.2d 56, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-american-hyperbaric-center-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack