KATAMAN METALS LLC v. MACQUARIE FUTURES USA LLC (2024)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry R. Ostrager, J.), entered September 19, 2023, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, unanimously modified, on the law, to reinstate the first through fourth causes of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Contrary to the motion court's holding, the June 17 emails do not require new consideration to the extent they constitute a written modification of the parties’ existing customer agreement (General Obligations Law § 5–1103;  GG Mgrs. v. Fidata Trust Co. N.Y., 215 A.D.2d 241, 241–242, 626 N.Y.S.2d 488 [1st Dept. 1995], lv dismissed 87 N.Y.2d 896, 640 N.Y.S.2d 880, 663 N.E.2d 922 [1995]).

A modification to a contract need not refer expressly to the existing contract (see generally Ion Audio, LLC v. Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc., 2019 WL 1494398, *3, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58913, *8–9 [S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2019, No. 15CV8292 (KMW)]).  Here, the emails at issue sufficiently demonstrate the parties’ clear agreement to be bound by the modification and new terms (see, e.g. Stevens v. Publicis, S.A., 50 A.D.3d 253, 255, 854 N.Y.S.2d 690 [1st Dept. 2008], lv dismissed 10 N.Y.3d 930, 862 N.Y.S.2d 333, 892 N.E.2d 399 [2008]).

The court correctly dismissed the quasi-contract claims as duplicative of the contract claims (see Susman v. Commerzbank Capital Mkts. Corp., 95 A.D.3d 589, 590, 945 N.Y.S.2d 5 [1st Dept. 2012], lv denied 19 N.Y.3d 810, 2012 WL 3743926 [2012]).