Narrative Opinion Summary
In a breach of warranty action initiated by Koike Aronson, Inc. against Bearing Distributors, Inc., the Supreme Court of Wyoming County dismissed the amended complaint based on a forum selection clause mandating litigation in Ohio. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this dismissal, determining that the forum selection clause was not part of the parties' agreement, aligning with precedent from the Third Department in *Lorbrook Corp. v G. T Indus.* which went uncontested by the defendant. The defendant's new argument, introduced for the first time on appeal, that the forum selection clause was a supplementary term derived from the course of dealing, was rejected due to its untimely presentation and lack of documentary evidence as required under CPLR 3211 (a)(1). The appellate court emphasized that establishing supplementary terms based on the course of dealing requires more than just the delivery of forms. Consequently, the appellate court reinstated the amended complaint, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Legal Issues Addressed
Course of Dealing and Supplementary Termssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court highlighted that supplementary terms based on a course of dealing require more than the mere delivery of forms.
Reasoning: The court further emphasized that even if supplementary terms could be based on a course of dealing, the mere delivery of forms by one party does not meet the necessary criteria for such analysis.
Documentary Evidence Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant's affidavit lacked sufficient documentary evidence to support dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a)(1).
Reasoning: The court noted that the supporting affidavit from the defendant's employee lacked the requisite documentary evidence and could not satisfy the standard for dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a)(1).
Forum Selection Clausessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found that the forum selection clause had not become part of the agreement between the parties, reversing the trial court's dismissal.
Reasoning: The appellate court agreed with the plaintiff that the forum selection clause had not become part of the agreement.
New Arguments on Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant's attempt to introduce a new argument regarding the forum selection clause as a supplementary term on appeal was rejected.
Reasoning: However, this argument was raised for the first time on appeal and was deemed inappropriate for consideration.
Precedent and Legal Consistencysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court's decision was supported by precedent from the Third Department, which was not contested by the defendant.
Reasoning: This conclusion was supported by precedent from the Third Department in *Lorbrook Corp. v G. T Indus.*, which the defendant did not contest.