Stewart M. Muller Const. Co., Inc. v. New York Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 November 1976
• Citation: Stewart M. Muller Const. Co., Inc. v. New York Tel. Co., 390 N.Y.S.2d 817, 40 N.Y.2d 955 (N.Y. 1976)
• Parties: , 359 N.E.2d 328 STEWART M. MULLER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 817

390 N.Y.S.2d 817

40 N.Y.2d 955, 359 N.E.2d 328

STEWART M. MULLER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., et al., Appellants, v. NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 18, 1976.

Jonathan L. Rosner, New York City, for appellants.

Arnold I. Roth, New York City, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. A contract may be voided on the ground of economic duress where the complaining party was compelled to agree to its terms by means of a wrongful threat which precluded the exercise of its free will. (Austin Instrument v. Loral Corp., 29 N.Y.2d 124, 130, 324 N.Y.S.2d 22, 25, 272 N.E.2d 533, 535; Oleet v. Pennsylvania Exch. Bank, 285 App.Div. 411, 137 N.Y.S.2d 779.) Here, plaintiff alleged that the settlement agreement was induced by defendant's threat to terminate their earlier contract. The amended complaint and the affidavit in opposition to the motion to dismiss fail to allege that the defendant was not within its contractual rights in threatening to exercise the termination clause contained in the contract. Rather, it appears that the defendant, in the context of contractual dispute, preserved its rights by following the letter of the termination clause, while at the same time seeking an accommodation with the financially hardpressed plaintiff. In view of the explicit provisions of the termination clause, which gave defendant the right to cancel...