Sky Top Farms, Inc. v. Bilinski Sausage Mfg. Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sky Top Farms, Inc. v. Bilinski Sausage Mfg. Co.

73 A.D.3d 538, 904 N.Y.S.2d 2

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

DecidedMay 13, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 73 A.D.3d 538 (Sky Top Farms, Inc. v. Bilinski Sausage Mfg. 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

Sky Top Farms, Inc. v. Bilinski Sausage Mfg. Co., 73 A.D.3d 538, 904 N.Y.S.2d 2 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered on or about June 15, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint based upon the documentary evidence was appropriate, where the termination clause of the parties’ contract allowed defendant to terminate the contract due to plaintiffs failure to purchase meat products from it for four consecutive time periods (see e.g. Daeun Corp. v A&L 444 LLC, 62 AD3d 479 [2009]), and plaintiffs claims that defendant acted in bad faith are contradicted by the evidence. Furthermore, the unambiguous language of the contract’s integration clause, together with the parol evidence rule, precludes plaintiffs claim that the contract was subsequently modified with respect to the purchasing requirements (see Societe Financiere de Banque v Bitter-Larkin, 248 AD2d 298 [1998]; Demas v 325 W. End Ave. Corp., 127 AD2d 476, 478 [1987]).

[539]*539We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions, including its alleged need for further discovery to show that defendant acted in bad faith in an attempt to back out of the contract, and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered on or about June 15, 2009, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Dismissal of the complaint based upon the documentary evidence was appropriate, where the termination clause of the parties’ contract allowed defendant to terminate the contract due to plaintiffs failure to purchase meat products from it for four consecutive time periods (see e.g. Daeun Corp. v A&L 444 LLC, 62 AD3d 479 [2009]), and plaintiffs claims that defendant acted in bad faith are contradicted by the evidence. Furthermore, the unambiguous language of the contract’s integration clause, together with the parol evidence rule, precludes plaintiffs claim that the contract was subsequently modified with respect to the purchasing requirements (see Societe Financiere de Banque v Bitter-Larkin, 248 AD2d 298 [1998]; Demas v 325 W. End Ave. Corp., 127 AD2d 476, 478 [1987]).

[539]*539We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions, including its alleged need for further discovery to show that defendant acted in bad faith in an attempt to back out of the contract, and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 A.D.3d 538, 904 N.Y.S.2d 2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sky-top-farms-inc-v-bilinski-sausage-mfg-co-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack