1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. A.D.3d
  4. 101 A.D.3d
  5. 101 A.D.3d 431 (2012)
 

LAX v. DESIGN QUEST N.Y. LTD.

8715, 105299/11.

101 A.D.3d 431 (2012)

955 N.Y.S.2d 34

2012 NY Slip Op 8406

SUSAN LAX et al., Appellants, v. DESIGN QUEST N.Y. LTD. et al., Respondents.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

December 6, 2012.

Given that plaintiffs' alleged oral contract was formed after execution of the parties' written agreement, it did not fall within the parol evidence rule (see Marine Midland Bank-S. v Thurlow, 53 N.Y.2d 381, 387 [1981]). Nor was it barred as an oral modification to the parties' contract, as that contract contained no clause prohibiting oral modification (see General Obligations Law § 15-301). Nor was dismissal supported...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases