Sidney Roberts Associates, Inc. v. Eichner Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sidney Roberts Associates, Inc. v. Eichner Enterprises, Inc.

225 A.D.2d 510, 640 N.Y.2d 36, 640 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3270

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

DecidedMarch 28, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 225 A.D.2d 510 (Sidney Roberts Associates, Inc. v. Eichner Enterprises, 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

Sidney Roberts Associates, Inc. v. Eichner Enterprises, Inc., 225 A.D.2d 510, 640 N.Y.2d 36, 640 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The IAS Court properly rejected defendants’ invocation of the parol evidence rule to bar the first three causes of action, where, on this motion addressed to the sufficiency of the pleading in which the allegations are to be given their most favorable intendment (see, Four Seasons Hotels v Vinnik, 127 AD2d 310, 318), it was not clear that the parties intended their writing to constitute their entire agreement. A claim for recovery of commissions based on an oral agreement was stated; leave to replead was properly granted to rectify the unartful drafting of the causes of action (CPLR 3211 [e]; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:64). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Sullivan, Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

The IAS Court properly rejected defendants’ invocation of the parol evidence rule to bar the first three causes of action, where, on this motion addressed to the sufficiency of the pleading in which the allegations are to be given their most favorable intendment (see, Four Seasons Hotels v Vinnik, 127 AD2d 310, 318), it was not clear that the parties intended their writing to constitute their entire agreement. A claim for recovery of commissions based on an oral agreement was stated; leave to replead was properly granted to rectify the unartful drafting of the causes of action (CPLR 3211 [e]; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:64). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Sullivan, Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 510, 640 N.Y.2d 36, 640 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sidney-roberts-associates-inc-v-eichner-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack