From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Weingarten v. S & R Medallion Corp..

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Sep 29, 2011
87 A.D.3d 947 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-09-29

Victor WEINGARTEN, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.S & R MEDALLION CORP., et al., Defendants–Respondents,David Beier, Defendant.


Cobert, Haber & Haber, Garden City (Eugene F. Haber of counsel), for appellant.Evan L. Gordon, New York, for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered April 19, 2010, which, in this breach of contract action, denied plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion. The proposed allegation of a “tacit” modification of the parties' written agreement, which required modifications to be in writing, is clearly devoid of merit ( see Bishop v. Maurer, 83 A.D.3d 483, 485, 921 N.Y.S.2d 224 [2011] ). Plaintiff denies that there was any oral modification of the written agreement, and he makes no allegations to support a claim of modification based upon conduct. With respect to the remaining proposed allegations, plaintiff asserts that they merely clarify the existing pleading. Accordingly, the court properly determined that they may be proven at trial and, if necessary, the pleadings can be amended to conform to the proof.

*865 TOM, J.P., CATTERSON, RENWICK, FREEDMAN, MANZANET–DANIELS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Weingarten v. S & R Medallion Corp..

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Sep 29, 2011
87 A.D.3d 947 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

Weingarten v. S & R Medallion Corp..

Case Details

Full title:Victor WEINGARTEN, Plaintiff–Appellant,v.S & R MEDALLION CORP., et al.…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Sep 29, 2011

Citations

87 A.D.3d 947 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 6655
929 N.Y.S.2d 864