Flexible Business Systems, Inc. v. Dag Media, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Melville Capital, LLC v. Gugick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Neiss v. Fried (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Givati v. Air Techniques, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Givati v. Air Techniques, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- A. Montilli Plumbing & Heating Corp. v. Valentino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- B. Reitman Blacktop, Inc. v.Missirlian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In reviewing a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court’s power is as broad as that of the trial court, and it may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account that in a close case the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Narendra v Thieriot, 41 AD3d 442, 443 [2007]).
Where, as here, the parties set down their agreement in a clear, complete document, their writing should be enforced according to its terms (see Bailey v Fish & Neave, 8 NY3d 523, 528 [2007]; South Rd. Assoc., LLC v International Bus. Machs. Corp., 4 NY3d 272, 277 [2005]; W.W.W. Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]). The Supreme Court correctly determined that the defendants, rather than the plaintiff, breached the parties’ written agreement. The plaintiff was obligated under the contract, inter alia, to convert two specific software files to a new accounting program. However, the contract expressly warranted that any work performed thereunder was subject to the limitations of the new program. The plaintiff established by a preponderance of the credible evidence that it converted the
The plaintiff also established, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that the defendants were liable to it for outstanding amounts due on unpaid invoices under a theory of account stated.
The defendants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.P., Dillon, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.