Sanyo Elec., Inc. v. Pinros & Gar Corp.
| Decision Date | 18 June 1991 |
| Citation | 174 A.D.2d 452,571 N.Y.S.2d 237 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | SANYO ELECTRIC, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PINROS & GAR CORP., Defendant-Appellant. |
Before CARRO, J.P., and ELLERIN, KUPFERMAN, SMITH and RUBIN, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David H. Edwards, Jr., J.), entered on or about December 21, 1989, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant's first, second, third and fourth counterclaims, with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
After plaintiff commenced this action for goods sold and delivered, defendant interposed four counterclaims alleging fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, promissory estoppel and conspiracy. The gravamen of the counterclaims is that plaintiff fraudulently induced defendant to continue a distributorship arrangement, purchase the goods for which payment was sought, and expand its sales force and warehouse/showroom facilities by misrepresenting that defendant would be plaintiff's primary distributor for the New York and New Jersey area, replacing all smaller distributors, and that the agreement would remain in effect so long as each party continued business operations. Before the alleged oral distributorship agreement was reduced to writing, plaintiff terminated the relationship.
The court below properly dismissed defendant's second counterclaim for breach of contract, on the ground that it was barred by the statute of frauds requirement that an agreement which, by its terms, is not performable within one year from the making thereof, is unenforceable unless evidenced by a writing. (General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][1]; Northshore Bottling Co., Inc. v. C. Schmidt & Sons, Inc., 22 N.Y.2d 171, 292 N.Y.S.2d 86, 239 N.E.2d 189.) We further find that proof of the alleged distributorship agreement is barred by UCC § 2-201, which requires a signed writing with respect to contracts for the sale of goods in excess of $500. ( Swerdloff v. Mobil Oil Corp., 74 A.D.2d 258, 427 N.Y.S.2d 266, lv. denied, 50 N.Y.2d 913, 431 N.Y.S.2d 523, 409 N.E.2d 995.)
We also find that summary judgment was properly granted dismissing both the first counterclaim, for fraudulent inducement, and the third counterclaim, alleging promissory estoppel. The submissions of the parties contain absolutely no showing of fraudulent intent on plaintiff's part at the time the promise was allegedly made. Even...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missigman v. Usi Northeast, Inc.
...and foreseeable; and that the party asserting the estoppel was injured by his reliance. Sanyo Electric, Inc. v. Pinros & Gar Corp., 174 A.D.2d 452, 571 N.Y.S.2d 237 (1st Dep't 1991). Plaintiff had ample time to amend his Complaint. This lawsuit was filed on July 1, 1999, and this court issu......
-
Gabriel v. Therapists Unlimited, L.P.
...435, 436, 529 N.Y.S.2d 777; see also, Sabo v. Delman, 3 N.Y.2d 155, 164 N.Y.S.2d 714, 143 N.E.2d 906; Sanyo Elec. v. Pinros & Gar. Corp., 174 A.D.2d 452, 453, 571 N.Y.S.2d 237). A party who claims to have been fraudulently induced to enter a contract, however, may join a fraud claim with on......
-
Hyatt Corp. v. Women's Intern. Bowling Congress
...of these three elements, summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action may be granted. Sanyo Electric, Inc. v. Pinros & Gar Corp., 174 A.D.2d 452, 571 N.Y.S.2d 237, 238 (1st Dept.1991) (dismissing on summary judgment defendant's counterclaim alleging promissory estoppel for failure......
-
Union Cosmetic Castle v. Amorepacific Cosmetics
...and foreseeable; and that the party asserting the estoppel was injured by his reliance. Sanyo Electric, Inc. v. Pinros & Gar Corp., 174 A.D.2d 452, 571 N.Y.S.2d 237 (1st Dep't 1991). Missigman v. USI Northeast, Inc., 131 F.Supp.2d 495, 518 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (emphasis added). Having failed to a......
-
Limits On Termination Rights
...(Tex. Ct. App. 2007) (breach of alleged distributorship contract claim barred by statute of frauds); Sanyo Elec. v. Pinros & Gar Corp., 571 N.Y.S.2d 237 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) (alleged oral distributorship agreement barred by UCC Article 2 statute of frauds). requirements obligation. If the ......
-
Table of Cases
...(1974), 90 Sancap Abrasives Corp. v. Swiss Indus. Abrasives, 19 Fed. Appx. 181 (6th Cir. 2001), 159 Sanyo Elec. v. Pinros & Gar Corp., 571 N.Y.S.2d 237 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), 36 Sarawari v. BP Products N. Am., 2007 WL 1118344 (D.N.J. 2007), 67 Satellite Receivers v. Household Bank (Ill.), N......