You are here: / / ​ THE EXISTENCE OF A WRITTEN CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES R...
,

​ THE EXISTENCE OF A WRITTEN CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO SALES AND MARKETING DID NOT, PURSUANT TO THE PAROL EVIDENCE RULE, PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF AN ALLEGED ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES RELATING TO THE FORMATION AND OWNERSHIP OF A BUSINESS (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the counterclaim for breach of an oral contract should not have been dismissed. The court explained when the parol evidence rule does not exclude evidence of an oral contract. Here there was a written consulting agreement for defendant’s marketing and sales services. The alleged oral agreement related to the formation and ownership of a company (ION):

… ” … [A] written agreement does not exclude proof of a parol collateral agreement made even between the same parties, where the written contract is not intended to embody the whole agreement and does not on its face purport to cover completely the subject-matter of the alleged collateral agreement” … . For a prior oral agreement to be enforceable, “(1) the agreement must in form be a collateral one; (2) it must not contradict express or implied provisions of the written contract; (3) it must be one that parties would not ordinarily be expected to embody in the writing; or put in another way, an inspection of the written contract, read in the light of surrounding circumstances must not indicate that the writing appears to contain the engagements of the parties, and to define the object and measure the extent of such engagement. Or again, it must not be so clearly connected with the principal transaction as to be part and parcel of it” … .

Here, the consulting agreement did not completely cover the same subject matter as the alleged oral agreement, as the alleged oral agreement related to the formation and ownership of ION and the consulting agreement only related to the compensation that Ovadia [defendant] would receive for performing certain marketing and sales services … . Further, the alleged oral agreement did not vary, alter, or supplement any terms of the consulting agreement, which did not address ownership interests in ION … . Moreover, it would not ordinarily be expected that the subject matter of the alleged oral agreement would be addressed in the consulting agreement … . Parizat v Meron, 2024 NY Slip Op 04776, Second Dept 10-2-24

Practice Point: Consult this decision for a clear explanation of the application of the parol evidence rule. Here evidence of an alleged oral contract between the parties was not precluded by the existence of a written consulting agreement because the two agreements covered different subjects and the terms did not conflict.

 

You might also like
FATHER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE HIS CONSENT TO ADOPTION WAS REQUIRED; ALTHOUGH FATHER WAS INCARCERATED FOR MUCH OF THE TIME SINCE THE CHILD WAS BORN, FATHER DID NOT SUPPORT THE CHILD OR MAKE ANY EFFORT TO GAIN PARENTAL ACCESS TO THE CHILD DURING THE PERIODS HE WAS NOT INCARCERATED (SECOND DEPT).
THE NYC WATER BOARD DETERMINED PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A RETROACTIVE REDUCTION IN SEWER CHARGES BUT WAS NOT NAMED AS A RESPONDENT IN PETITIONER’S ARTICLE 78 ACTION; THE WATER BOARD MUST BE ADDED AS A NECESSARY PARTY (SECOND DEPT).
THE JURY NOTES SHOULD HAVE BEEN READ VERBATIM TO COUNSEL, NOT PARAPHRASED BY THE JUDGE; THIS MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRES REVERSAL (SECOND DEPT).
Jury’s Failure to Award Damages for Future Pain and Suffering Did Not Warrant Setting Aside Verdict
IF THE NOTE OF ISSUE HAS BEEN VACATED, THE CPLR 3404 REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTORING THE ACTION TO THE CALENDAR DO NOT APPLY; THERFORE THE MOTION TO RESTORE NEED NOT BE MADE WITHIN A YEAR AND NEED NOT DEMONSTRATE A MERITIORIOUS CAUSE OF ACTION, REASONABLE EXCUSE, NO INTENT TO ABANDON, AND LACK OF PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216 BECAUSE NO 90-DAY NOTICE HAD BEEN SERVED; DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS WAS NOT WARRANTED, BUT PRECLUSION OF FURTHER DISCOVERY WAS APPROPRIATE (SECOND DEPT).
Amendment to Notice of Claim to Add Second Hospital Should Have Been Allowed
DEFENDANTS SCHOOL BUS COMPANY AND BOARD OF EDUCATION DID NOT HAVE NOTICE CHILDREN WHO INJURED INFANT PLAINTIFF ON THE SCHOOL BUS WERE CAPABLE OF DANGEROUS CONDUCT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT’S VACATION OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD AS “IRRATIONAL”... THE FACT THAT THE POLICE WERE AWARE THE VAN THEY STOPPED HAD REPORTEDLY BEEN...