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.
WHITE DIRECTORY PUBLISHERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIEGEL, KELLEHER & KAHN, Defendant-Respondent.
Plaintiff appeals from an order denying its motion for summary judgment in this action for damages arising from six contracts for advertising by defendant in the Buffalo, Lake Shore, Jamestown, Lockport and Niagara Falls editions of plaintiff's telephone book directory, and in plaintiff's Internet based directory for the Buffalo area. We conclude that plaintiff met its initial burden of entitlement to summary judgment (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718), but nevertheless further conclude that defendant raised a triable issue of fact, with respect to whether plaintiff violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing regarding the Buffalo telephone book contract (see generally Dalton v. Educational Testing Serv., 87 N.Y.2d 384, 389, 639 N.Y.S.2d 977, 663 N.E.2d 289). Supreme Court therefore properly denied those parts of the motion seeking summary judgment on plaintiff's first and seventh causes of action.
The court erred, however, in denying those parts of plaintiff's motion seeking summary judgment on the 2nd through 6th causes of action and the 8th through 12th causes of action. Contrary to defendant's contention, the issue of fact with respect to the Buffalo telephone book contract does not preclude the granting of summary judgment on the causes of action relating to the other contracts because they were “ ‘separate and independent transaction[s]’ ” (Rudman v. Cowles Communications, 30 N.Y.2d 1, 13, 330 N.Y.S.2d 33, 280 N.E.2d 867). We therefore modify the order accordingly, and we remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing on the amount of reasonable attorney's fees and, if necessary, costs and to direct the entry of judgment on the amounts sought in the 2nd through 6th and 8th through 12th causes of action together with interest, costs and attorney's fees.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by granting those parts of the motion with respect to the 2nd through 6th and 8th through 12th causes of action and as modified the order is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings.
MEMORANDUM:
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: March 18, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth 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)