Sailsman Graphics Co. v. Verizon Yellow Pages Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sailsman Graphics Co. v. Verizon Yellow Pages Co.

5 A.D.3d 317, 773 N.Y.S.2d 559, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3514

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

DecidedMarch 30, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 317 (Sailsman Graphics Co. v. Verizon Yellow Pages Co.) 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

Sailsman Graphics Co. v. Verizon Yellow Pages Co., 5 A.D.3d 317, 773 N.Y.S.2d 559, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered April 25, 2003, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this class action to recover overcharges, the terms of the agreements were not ambiguous. Reasonably interpreted (see Uribe v Merchants Bank of N.Y., 91 NY2d 336, 341 [1998]), those terms sustain defendants’ position that the issue period of the directories could be extended for up to six months, either before or after the date of publication. Furthermore, the claim for unjust enrichment is not supportable where the contract language governs the dispute (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382 [1987]). Finally, there is nothing inequitable about defendants retaining advertising fees resulting from an agreement that plaintiffs had freely entered into. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered April 25, 2003, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this class action to recover overcharges, the terms of the agreements were not ambiguous. Reasonably interpreted (see Uribe v Merchants Bank of N.Y., 91 NY2d 336, 341 [1998]), those terms sustain defendants’ position that the issue period of the directories could be extended for up to six months, either before or after the date of publication. Furthermore, the claim for unjust enrichment is not supportable where the contract language governs the dispute (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382 [1987]). Finally, there is nothing inequitable about defendants retaining advertising fees resulting from an agreement that plaintiffs had freely entered into. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 317, 773 N.Y.S.2d 559, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sailsman-graphics-co-v-verizon-yellow-pages-co-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack