No Name Refrigerated Transp., Inc. v Cardinal Logistics Mgt. Corp.

[*1] No Name Refrigerated Transp., Inc. v Cardinal Logistics Mgt. Corp. 2010 NY Slip Op 50602(U) [27 Misc 3d 129(A)] Decided on April 2, 2010 Appellate Term, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 2, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: : NICOLAI, P.J., TANENBAUM and MOLIA, JJ
2009-656 N C.

No Name Refrigerated Transport, Inc., Respondent,

against

Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, Fourth District (Bonnie P. Chaikin, J.), entered June 25, 2008. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiff the principal sum of $5,000.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed without costs and the action is dismissed.

Plaintiff commenced this commercial claims action to recover for breach of a contract. At the nonjury trial, plaintiff's president testified that, upon receiving defendant's 30-day notice dated November 14, 2007 to terminate the agreement, he had submitted a termination notice dated November 18, 2007 to defendant indicating that the termination was effective immediately without the 30 days' notice required pursuant to the written agreement between the parties. Whereupon, defendant accepted plaintiff's immediate termination of said agreement. The District Court held that defendant had breached the contract by failing to abide by its 30-day notice of termination dated November 14, 2007 and that the attempt to modify the termination date was of no legal effect and lacked consideration.

On appeal, defendant contends that the agreement was properly terminated since defendant chose to accept plaintiff's proposal to terminate the agreement immediately without a 30-day notice.

Paragraph 6.1 (a) of the parties' contract provides that the parties may mutually agree to a termination date. Upon a review of the evidence adduced at trial, we find that the contract was properly terminated pursuant to this provision. As the judgment in favor of plaintiff failed to render substantial justice according to the rules and principles of substantive law (UDCA 1807-A), the judgment is reversed and the action is dismissed.

Nicolai, P.J., Tanenbaum and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: April 02, 2010