Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Betty Owen Stinson, J.), entered on or about June 15, 2009, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
Andrias, J.P., Catterson, Renwick, Richter, RomÁn, JJ.
Dismissal of the complaint based upon the documentary evidence was appropriate, where the termination clause of the parties' contract allowed defendant to terminate the contract due to plaintiff's failure to purchase meat products from it for four consecutive time periods (see e.g. Daeun Corp. v A & L 444 LLC, 62 AD3d 479 ), and plaintiff's claims that defendant acted in bad faith are contradicted by the evidence. Furthermore, the unambiguous language of the contract's integration clause, together with the parol evidence rule, precludes plaintiff's claim that the contract was subsequently modified with respect to the purchasing requirements (see Societe Financiere de Banque v Bitter-Larkin, 248 AD2d 298 ; Demas v 325 W. End Ave. Corp., 127 AD2d 476, 478 ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions, including its alleged need for further discovery to show that defendant acted in bad faith in an attempt to back out of the contract, and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...