Opinion
April 30, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.).
The parol evidence on which defendant relies, purporting to demonstrate that the parties' actual agreement was for plaintiff to manufacture garments for defendants at a particular cost, was properly rejected by the IAS Court. The agreement for the purchase of fabric on which plaintiff sues does not mention any such agreement and contains a merger clause such that the parol evidence would vary or add to the subject contract ( see, Katz v. American Tech. Indus., 96 A.D.2d 932, 932-933). We have considered defendant's other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.