| Studio A Showroom, LLC v Yoon |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07205 [99 AD3d 632] |
| October 25, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Studio A Showroom, LLC, Appellant, v David Yoon et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Law Office of John F. Olsen, LLC, Rye Brook (John F. Olsen of counsel), forrespondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered May 18, 2011,which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants' motion for summaryjudgment dismissing the fourth cause of action in plaintiff's complaint as against defendantYoony Corp. Holdings doing business as the Addison Story (Addison), unanimously affirmed,with costs.
Although Addison failed to include the pleadings with its motion, the error was properlyoverlooked, as the pleadings were filed electronically and thus were available to the parties andthe court (see Welch v Hauck, 18AD3d 1096, 1098 [3d Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 708 [2005]).
Regardless of whether the parties agreed to delete the portion of their agreement containingthe termination and integration clauses—a point the parties dispute—the end resultwas that the agreement did not contain a clause stating that it could be modified only in writing.Further, the record evidence demonstrates that the parties did, in fact, agree to terminate theiragreement on 30 days' notice (see Belknap v Witter & Co., 92 AD2d 515, 517 [1st Dept1983, Kupferman, J., concurring], affd 61 NY2d 802 [1984]; cf. Lansco Corp. v Kampeas, 87 AD3d421, 422 [1st Dept 2011]). The evidence does not support plaintiff's contention that it agreedto terminate the agency relationship, but not the agreement. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P.,Sweeny, Renwick, Richter and Román, JJ.