Opinion
2020
October 28, 2003.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered August 13, 2002, which, upon the prior grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $2,229,671.43, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Andrew B. Messite, for plaintiff-respondent.
Jonathan K. Cooperman, for defendant-appellant.
Before: Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Friedman, Marlow, JJ.
The motion court correctly rejected defendant's argument that its obligations to make payment under the parties' February 2000 settlement agreement and to pay plaintiff's share of its margin on the resale of certain services were contingent on plaintiff's charging it cost or most favored nation rates for the services it provided defendant, since, under the circumstances, the implication of dependent covenants would have rendered the settlement meaningless (see Ronnen v. Ajax Elec. Motor Corp., 88 N.Y.2d 582, 589), and there was no evidence that defendant's margin obligation was subject to such covenants. Summary judgment was also properly awarded for post-settlement charges based on an account stated, defendant having failed to challenge plaintiff's invoices for the subject period and, further, having made partial payments (see Morrison Cohen Singer Weinstein, LLP v. Ackerman, 280 A.D.2d 355).
The counterclaims were properly dismissed for, among other reasons, those advanced by the court in sustaining the complaint, and because they were otherwise deficient as a matter of law (see MTI/The Image Group, Inc. v. Fox Studios E., Inc., 262 A.D.2d 20, 23-24). The motion court properly concluded that the claimed need for discovery did not provide a basis to forestall summary judgment.
We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.