Opinion
02-19-2015
COLEMAN & ASSOCIATES ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. VERIZON CORPORATE SERVICES GROUP, INC., Defendant–Respondent.
Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC, New York (Marcia A. McCree of counsel), for appellant. Ballard Spahr Stillman & Friedman LLP, New York (Scott M. Himes of counsel), for respondent.
Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC, New York (Marcia A. McCree of counsel), for appellant.
Ballard Spahr Stillman & Friedman LLP, New York (Scott M. Himes of counsel), for respondent.
FRIEDMAN, J.P., ANDRIAS, MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, RICHTER, JJ.
Opinion
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered September 13, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's breach of contract and promissory estoppel causes of action, deemed appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, entered November 1, 2013, inter alia, dismissing said causes of action, and, so considered, the judgment is unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Even though plaintiff appealed from the order and not the ensuing final judgment, in the interests of justice, we deem plaintiff's notice of appeal from the order a valid notice of appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]; Robertson v. Greenstein, 308 A.D.2d 381, 764 N.Y.S.2d 413 [1st Dept.2003], lv. dismissed 2 N.Y.3d 759, 778 N.Y.S.2d 776, 811 N.E.2d 38 [2004] ).
The agreements unambiguously provided that the Professional Services Agreement was to be the overarching agreement governing the parties' relationship; that Statement of Work No. 1 (SOW 1) governed the work at the Norfolk, Virginia call center; and that Statement of Work No. 2 (SOW 2) governed the work at the Tampa, Florida call center. Contrary to plaintiff's contention, nothing in the agreements indicates that the annual labor rate increases provided for in SOW 1 also applied to SOW 2. Given the unambiguous language of the agreements, the motion court properly declined to consider plaintiff's extrinsic evidence (see W.W.W. Assoc. v. Giancontieri, 77 N.Y.2d 157, 163, 565 N.Y.S.2d 440, 566 N.E.2d 639 [1990] ). The court also properly dismissed the promissory estoppel claim, as the alleged conduct underlying the claim was governed by the written contracts, and plaintiff failed to allege a duty independent of the contracts (see Saivest Empreendimentos Imobiliarios E. Participacoes, Ltda v. Elman Invs., Inc., 117 A.D.3d 447, 449, 985 N.Y.S.2d 54 [1st Dept.2014] ; 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] ).