Purchase Partners II, LLC v. Westreich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Purchase Partners II, LLC v. Westreich

50 A.D.3d 499, 856 N.Y.S.2d 572

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

DecidedApril 22, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.3d 499 (Purchase Partners II, LLC v. Westreich) 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

Purchase Partners II, LLC v. Westreich, 50 A.D.3d 499, 856 N.Y.S.2d 572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered February 8, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that plaintiffs are not entitled to enforce the August 11, 2004 letter agreement, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Even if, arguendo, plaintiffs were third-party beneficiaries of the August 11, 2004 letter agreement between defendant and third-party defendant Hochfelder, the merger clause in their November 12, 2004 separation agreement effectively barred their claims under the earlier agreement (see Jarecki v Shung Moo Louie, 95 NY2d 665, 669 [2001]). Plaintiffs were aware of the terms of the separation agreement, which did not contain the claimed benefits but did contain such merger clause, and they did not object (see Barnum v Millbrook Care Ltd. Partnership, 850 F Supp 1227, 1236 [1994], affd 43 F3d 1458 [1994]). We modify solely to declare in defendant’s favor (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]). Concur—Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ. [See 14 Misc 3d 1228(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 50201(U).]

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard J. Fried, J.), entered February 8, 2007, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law, to declare that plaintiffs are not entitled to enforce the August 11, 2004 letter agreement, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Even if, arguendo, plaintiffs were third-party beneficiaries of the August 11, 2004 letter agreement between defendant and third-party defendant Hochfelder, the merger clause in their November 12, 2004 separation agreement effectively barred their claims under the earlier agreement (see Jarecki v Shung Moo Louie, 95 NY2d 665, 669 [2001]). Plaintiffs were aware of the terms of the separation agreement, which did not contain the claimed benefits but did contain such merger clause, and they did not object (see Barnum v Millbrook Care Ltd. Partnership, 850 F Supp 1227, 1236 [1994], affd 43 F3d 1458 [1994]). We modify solely to declare in defendant’s favor (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], cert denied 371 US 901 [1962]). Concur—Andrias, J.P, Friedman, Sweeny and Moskowitz, JJ. [See 14 Misc 3d 1228(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 50201(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 499, 856 N.Y.S.2d 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/purchase-partners-ii-llc-v-westreich-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack