Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ELDON GROUP AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EQUIPTEX INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS CORP., Defendant-Appellant.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered October 26, 1995, granting plaintiff summary judgment on its cause of action for goods sold and delivered, awarding plaintiff damages and severing defendant's counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff proved a prima facie case through the affirmation of its attorney based upon documentary evidence (see, Russo v. 491 W. St. Corp., 176 A.D.2d 672, 672-673, 575 N.Y.S.2d 322), including proofs of delivery of the subject goods, acknowledgements of receipt and admissions of delivery by defendant's president at his deposition even though he never signed the transcript (CPLR 3116[a] ). There is no merit to defendant's claim that plaintiff's unilateral increase in the price of merchandise and refusal to allow defendant to pass along the increase to its customers on resale constituted economic duress. To constitute such, as the motion court stated, a threat to withhold goods must be accompanied by a showing not made here, “ ‘that the threatened party could not obtain the goods from another source of supply and that the ordinary remedy of an action for breach of contract would not be adequate’ ” (Walbern Press v. C.V. Communications, 212 A.D.2d 460, 622 N.Y.S.2d 951, quoting Austin Instrument v. Loral Corp., 29 N.Y.2d 124, 130-131, 324 N.Y.S.2d 22, 272 N.E.2d 533; see also, Gulf & Western Corp. v. Craftique Prods., 523 F.Supp. 603, 610). We would also note that the record contains strong indications of ratification of the higher price that defendant leaves unaddressed. The merits of defendant's counterclaims for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract were not sufficiently shown to warrant denial of summary judgment to plaintiff, and for that reason were properly severed (see, Sullivan County Nat. Bank v. Mason, 67 A.D.2d 1045, 413 N.Y.S.2d 499, lv. denied 46 N.Y.2d 714, 416 N.Y.S.2d 1028, 390 N.E.2d 305).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 27, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)