Trepp, LLC v. McCord Development, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trepp, LLC v. McCord Development, Inc.

100 A.D.3d 510, 953 N.Y.S.2d 600

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 100 A.D.3d 510 (Trepp, LLC v. McCord Development, 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

Trepp, LLC v. McCord Development, Inc., 100 A.D.3d 510, 953 N.Y.S.2d 600 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil Singh, J.), entered January 18, 2012, pursuant to a so-ordered stipulation granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in the total amount of $101,908.06, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered April 6, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the portion of the complaint seeking $78,000 owed for the second year of the contract, following automatic renewal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The contract under which plaintiff agreed to give defendant access to its information and analytics concerning commercial and collateral mortgage-backed securities for a fee via plaintiffs website does not constitute a contract for “service . . . to . . . personal property” (see General Obligations Law § 5-903 [2]; Wornow v Register.Com, Inc., 8 AD3d 59 [1st Dept 2004]). The contract did not involve the provision or lease of personal property (see General Obligations Law § 5-901; compare Ovitz v Bloomberg L.P., 77 AD3d 515 [1st Dept 2010], affd 18 NY3d 753 [2012]).

Defendant’s contention that the contract permits it to terminate its subscription after the initial three months upon giving 15 days written notice is unpreserved. In any event, such interpretation amounts to a strained reading of the plain language of the contract. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Anil Singh, J.), entered January 18, 2012, pursuant to a so-ordered stipulation granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff in the total amount of $101,908.06, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered April 6, 2011, which denied defendant’s motion to dismiss the portion of the complaint seeking $78,000 owed for the second year of the contract, following automatic renewal, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The contract under which plaintiff agreed to give defendant access to its information and analytics concerning commercial and collateral mortgage-backed securities for a fee via plaintiffs website does not constitute a contract for “service . . . to . . . personal property” (see General Obligations Law § 5-903 [2]; Wornow v Register.Com, Inc., 8 AD3d 59 [1st Dept 2004]). The contract did not involve the provision or lease of personal property (see General Obligations Law § 5-901; compare Ovitz v Bloomberg L.P., 77 AD3d 515 [1st Dept 2010], affd 18 NY3d 753 [2012]).

Defendant’s contention that the contract permits it to terminate its subscription after the initial three months upon giving 15 days written notice is unpreserved. In any event, such interpretation amounts to a strained reading of the plain language of the contract. Concur — Friedman, J.E, Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 A.D.3d 510, 953 N.Y.S.2d 600, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trepp-llc-v-mccord-development-inc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack