Town New Development Sales & Marketing LLC v. Price

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Town New Development Sales & Marketing LLC v. Price

127 A.D.3d 549, 5 N.Y.S.3d 734

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

DecidedApril 16, 2015

Docket14846 653281/13

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 549 (Town New Development Sales & Marketing LLC v. Price) 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

Town New Development Sales & Marketing LLC v. Price, 127 A.D.3d 549, 5 N.Y.S.3d 734 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered August 29, 2014, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to amend his answer and to compel discovery, and granted plaintiffs cross motion to dismiss defendant’s first counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the parties have a written, fully integrated agreement with a merger clause that covers defendant’s compensation in detail, defendant cannot introduce parol evidence to prove a prior agreement with regard to his compensation (see Schron v Troutman Sanders LLP, 20 NY3d 430, 436 [2013]). Accordingly, the motion court properly dismissed the first counterclaim and the proposed amendment to that counterclaim. It also follows that defendant’s motion to compel discovery in support of the first counterclaim was properly denied. In any event, the motion was defective, since it sought to compel the depositions *550 of named employees of the corporate plaintiffs, without a showing that the corporate designee was not knowledgeable or did not possess all information (see Defina v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 217 AD2d 681 [2d Dept 1995]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, including that the cross motion to dismiss was defective because it was not supported by an affidavit on personal knowledge, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered August 29, 2014, which, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion to amend his answer and to compel discovery, and granted plaintiffs cross motion to dismiss defendant’s first counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Since the parties have a written, fully integrated agreement with a merger clause that covers defendant’s compensation in detail, defendant cannot introduce parol evidence to prove a prior agreement with regard to his compensation (see Schron v Troutman Sanders LLP, 20 NY3d 430, 436 [2013]). Accordingly, the motion court properly dismissed the first counterclaim and the proposed amendment to that counterclaim. It also follows that defendant’s motion to compel discovery in support of the first counterclaim was properly denied. In any event, the motion was defective, since it sought to compel the depositions *550 of named employees of the corporate plaintiffs, without a showing that the corporate designee was not knowledgeable or did not possess all information (see Defina v Brooklyn Union Gas Co., 217 AD2d 681 [2d Dept 1995]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, including that the cross motion to dismiss was defective because it was not supported by an affidavit on personal knowledge, and find them unavailing.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Saxe, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 549, 5 N.Y.S.3d 734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/town-new-development-sales-marketing-llc-v-price-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack