Opinion
8681 Index 652889/17
03-12-2019
VITAC CORPORATION, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. THOMSON REUTERS (MARKETING) LLC, Defendant–Respondent.
Dilworth Paxson LLP, Philadelphia, PA (Lawrence G. McMichael of the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), and Dilworth Paxson LLP, New York (Ira N. Glauber of counsel), for appellant. Satterlee Stephens LLP, New York (James F. Rittinger of counsel), for respondent.
Dilworth Paxson LLP, Philadelphia, PA (Lawrence G. McMichael of the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), and Dilworth Paxson LLP, New York (Ira N. Glauber of counsel), for appellant.
Satterlee Stephens LLP, New York (James F. Rittinger of counsel), for respondent.
Gische, J.P., Webber, Kern, Singh, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered January 16, 2018, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the motion denied.
The subject contract, which governed the provision of real-time transcription services over the Internet, did not involve the provision of leasing, servicing, or maintenance of personal property, and therefore did not fall within the ambit of General Obligations Law § 5–903 (see Donald Rubin, Inc. v. Schwartz, 160 A.D.2d 53, 57, 559 N.Y.S.2d 307 [1st Dept. 1990] ).
The termination provision of the contract, which provided both for automatic renewal every 12 months and termination at any time upon 60 days' notice, is ambiguous, in light of the language of the provision and of the other provisions of the contract read as a whole (see Matter of Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Entech, Inc. , 100 N.Y.2d 352, 358, 763 N.Y.S.2d 525, 794 N.E.2d 667 [2003] ; Discovision Assoc. v. Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., 71 A.D.3d 488, 898 N.Y.S.2d 11 [1st Dept. 2010] ).