| Coleman & Assoc. Enters., Inc. v Verizon Corporate Servs.Group, Inc. |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01540 [125 AD3d 520] |
| February 19, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
[*1]
| Coleman & Associates Enterprises, Inc.,Appellant, v Verizon Corporate Services Group, Inc.,Respondent. |
Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC, New York (Marcia A. McCree of counsel), forappellant.
Ballard Spahr Stillman & Friedman LLP, New York (Scott M. Himes ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), enteredSeptember 13, 2013, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granteddefendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's breach of contract and promissory estoppelcauses of action, deemed appeal from judgment, same court and Justice, enteredNovember 1, 2013, inter alia, dismissing said causes of action, and, so considered, thejudgment is unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Even though plaintiff appealed from the order and not the ensuing final judgment, inthe interests of justice, we deem plaintiff's notice of appeal from the order a valid noticeof appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5520 [c]; Robertson vGreenstein, 308 AD2d 381 [1st Dept 2003], lv dismissed 2 NY3d 759[2004]).
The agreements unambiguously provided that the Professional Services Agreementwas to be the overarching agreement governing the parties' relationship; that Statementof Work No. 1 (SOW 1) governed the work at the Norfolk, Virginia call center; and thatStatement of Work No. 2 (SOW 2) governed the work at the Tampa, Florida call center.Contrary to plaintiff's contention, nothing in the agreements indicates that the annuallabor rate increases provided for in SOW 1 also applied to SOW 2. Given theunambiguous language of the agreements, the motion court properly declined to considerplaintiff's extrinsic evidence (see W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157,163 [1990]).
The court also properly dismissed the promissory estoppel claim, as the allegedconduct underlying the claim was governed by the written contracts, and plaintiff failedto allege a duty independent of the contracts (see Saivest Empreendimentos Imobiliarios E. Participacoes, Ltda v[*2]Elman Invs., Inc., 117 AD3d 447, 449 [1stDept 2014]; Susman vCommerzbank Capital Mkts. Corp., 95 AD3d 589, 590 [1st Dept 2012], lvdenied 19 NY3d 810 [2012]). Concur—Friedman, J.P., Andrias, Moskowitz,DeGrasse and Richter, JJ. [Prior Case History: 2013 NY Slip Op32188(U).]