United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION AND ORDER
G. LARIMER United States District Judge.
Xerox Corporation ("Xerox") commenced this action
for breach of contract against defendant RP Digital Services,
Inc. ("RP") and Ultragraphics, Inc., a/k/a John T.
Crossley Inc. ("Ultragraphics") (collectively
"defendants"). Xerox seeks a money judgment against
the defendants for failure to pay monies due pursuant to a
Purchase Agreement and equipment Finance Lease (Dkt. #1).
Defendants assert counterclaims against Xerox for breach of
contract and lost profits. (Dkt. #8). Familiarity with the
underlying facts is presumed.
now moves for summary judgment on both of the counts
contained in the Complaint (Dkt. #1) - breach of a Purchase
Agreement by the defendants, and breach of the Finance Lease
by Ultragraphics - pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. (Dkt. #11).
For the reasons set forth below, that motion is granted.
The Purchase Agreement
September 28, 2010, RP executed a Purchase Agreement for a
D242 Printer with Xerox. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement,
RP agreed to make monthly payments to Xerox based on the
number of prints produced by the printer. The Purchase
agreement provides that, in the event of default by RP, Xerox
may cease providing maintenance services on the printer and
may require immediate payment as liquidated damages for all
amounts due, plus interest, and any costs and attorneys'
fees incurred by Xerox in attempting to enforce the Purchase
The Finance Lease
January 18, 2012, Ultragraphics executed a finance lease
agreement (“Finance Lease”) with Xerox. Pursuant
to the Finance Lease, Ultragraphics leased a X770 printer and
agreed to make specified monthly minimum payments, in
addition to monthly payments during the term for print
charges, calculated with reference to the number of prints
produced by the printer, both for a term of 60 months. The
Finance Lease provided that if Xerox was unable to maintain
the printer in accordance with the agreement,
Ultragraphics' exclusive remedy would be for Xerox to
provide it with an identical, or comparable, printer. The
Finance Lease also stated that upon default by Ultragraphics,
Xerox could, inter alia, remove the leased equipment, cease
providing maintenance services, and require immediate payment
as liquidated damages of all amounts then due, plus interest,
and demand any remaining payments due for the remainder of
the Finance Lease term.
commenced the instant action on February 3, 2016, claiming
that defendants had breached the Purchase Agreement and Lease
Agreement by failing to make the agreed-upon payments.
Defendants answered the complaint, denying the bulk of
Xerox's allegations and asserting counterclaims for
breach of the Lease Agreement based on Xerox's alleged
failure to provide equipment without defects and in good
working order, and the lost profits that ensued.
now moves for summary judgment on both of its causes of
action, and seeks damages in the amount of $3, 237.80 plus
costs and attorneys' fees on Count 1 (breach of the
Purchase Agreement) and $83, 618.76, plus costs and
attorneys' fees, on Count 2 (breach of the Finance
Lease). For the reasons that follow, Xerox's motion (Dkt.
#11) is granted, and Xerox is awarded damages on Count 1 in
the amount of $3, 361.44, and on Count 2 in an amount to be
Standard on a Motion for Summary Judgment
56(c) provides that a moving party is entitled to summary
judgment “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the
affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986). The Court's
role in determining a motion for summary judgment is not
“to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the
matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Id. When considering a motion for
summary judgment, the Court must draw ...