Studio a Showroom, LLC v. Yoon
Decision Date | 25 October 2012 |
Citation | 99 A.D.3d 632,952 N.Y.S.2d 879,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07205 |
Parties | STUDIO A SHOWROOM, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. David YOON, et al., Defendants–Respondents. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
99 A.D.3d 632
952 N.Y.S.2d 879
2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 07205
STUDIO A SHOWROOM, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
David YOON, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Oct. 25, 2012.
Halperin & Halperin, P.C., New York (Jeffrey Weiskopf of counsel), for appellant.
Law Office of John F. Olsen, LLC, Rye Brook (John F. Olsen of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered May 18, 2011, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action in plaintiff's complaint as against defendant Yoony Corp. Holdings d/b/a The Addison Story (Addison), unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Although Addison failed to include the pleadings with its motion, the error was properly overlooked, as the pleadings were filed electronically and thus were available to the parties and the court ( see Welch v. Hauck, 18 A.D.3d 1096, 1098, 795 N.Y.S.2d 789 [3d Dept. 2005],lv. denied 5 N.Y.3d 708, 803 N.Y.S.2d 29, 836 N.E.2d 1152 [2005] ).
Regardless of whether the parties agreed to delete the portion of their agreement containing the termination and integration clauses—a point the parties dispute—the end result was that the agreement did not contain a clause stating that it could be modified only in writing. Further, the record evidence demonstrates that the parties did, in fact, agree to terminate their agreement on 30 days' notice ( see Belknap v. Witter & Co., 92 A.D.2d 515, 517, 460 N.Y.S.2d 1005 [1st Dept. 1983],affd.61 N.Y.2d 802, 473 N.Y.S.2d 948, 462 N.E.2d 125 [1984];cf. Lansco Corp. v. Kampeas, 87 A.D.3d 421, 422, 927 N.Y.S.2d 647 [1st Dept. 2011] ). The evidence does not support plaintiff's contention that it agreed to terminate the agency relationship, but not the agreement.
MAZZARELLI, J.P., SWEENY, RENWICK, RICHTER, ROMÁN, JJ., concur.To continue reading
Request your trial-
DiCrescento v FPG CH 350 Henry, LLC
...(see Washington Realty Owners, LLC v. 260 Washington Street, LLC, 105 A.D.3d 675 [1 Dept., 2013]; Studio A Showroom, LLC v. Yoon, 99 A.D.3d 632 [1 Dept., 2012]). Additionally, contrary to defendants' contention, plaintiff has submitted evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to supp......
-
Champion v. Take Two Interactive Software, Inc.
...were electronically filed and available to all concerned, it is appropriate to overlook this error (see Studio A Showroom, LLC v. Yoon , 99 A.D.3d 632, 952 N.Y.S.2d 879 [1st Dept. 2012] ; see also Leary v. Bendow , 161 A.D.3d 420, 76 N.Y.S.3d 519 [1st Dept. 2018] ). Plaintiff also argues th......
-
Cardona v. Maramont Corp.
...available to the Court when plaintiffs' e-filed a copy of the pleadings with their motion (Studio A Showroom, LLC v. Yoon, 99 AD3d 632, 952 N .Y.S.2d 879 [1st Dept 2012] (failure to include the pleadings with its motion was properly overlooked, “as the pleadings were filed electronically an......
-
Alberico v. LDG Builders LLC
...may overlook this deficiency where, as is the case here, the pleadings were filed electronically (see Studio A Showroom, LLC v Yoon, 99 A.D.3d 632, 632 [1st Dept 2012]). Next, ATC contends that dismissal of its cross claims for contribution and common-law indemnification should be denied be......