From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Castrol, Inc. v. Farm Trading Co. of N.Y.C., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1996
228 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

June 24, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for summary judgment on the complaint and for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaims is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for entry of an appropriate judgment.

In this action, the plaintiff is seeking to collect payment for goods sold and delivered to the defendant. The defendant asserted, by way of affirmative defense and counterclaims, that the plaintiff discriminated against it in violation of the Federal and State antitrust laws by selling the same goods to other distributors at a lower price, breached the parties' contract, and fraudulently induced the defendant into entering into the contract.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the ground that the sale and delivery of the goods was not in dispute and that the defendant had failed to raise a valid defense to the claim of nonpayment. The plaintiff also moved for summary judgment dismissing the defendant's counterclaims. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding that there existed substantial issues of fact. We reverse.

An alleged violation of the antitrust laws is not a defense to an action to recover payment for goods sold and delivered ( see, TDK Elecs. Corp. v. M A Enters., 172 A.D.2d 603). Furthermore, the defendant has failed to demonstrate how further discovery might reveal the existence of material facts, currently within the exclusive control of the plaintiff, which would warrant the denial of summary judgment ( see, CPLR 3212 [f]; Kracker v Spartan Chem. Co., 183 A.D.2d 810).

With respect to the defendant's counterclaims, the allegations of price discrimination in this case do not state a cause of action under State antitrust laws (see, TDK Elecs. Corp. v. M A Enters., supra) and New York has no jurisdiction over claims of breach of Federal antitrust laws ( see, Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp. v. McGrath Durk, 133 A.D.2d 535). Moreover, no facts or circumstances were detailed in support of the defendant's purely conclusory allegations that the representations made by the plaintiff were false, and the defendant did not allege any facts tending to connect its alleged losses with the alleged fraudulent representations ( see, Glassman v. Catli, 111 A.D.2d 744). In addition, the defendant failed to make a prima facie showing of breach of contract ( see, Furia v. Furia, 116 A.D.2d 694). Accordingly, the defendant's counterclaims should have been dismissed. Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Castrol, Inc. v. Farm Trading Co. of N.Y.C., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 24, 1996
228 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Castrol, Inc. v. Farm Trading Co. of N.Y.C., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:CASTROL, INC., Appellant, v. PARM TRADING CO. OF N.Y.C., INC., Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 24, 1996

Citations

228 A.D.2d 633 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
645 N.Y.S.2d 825

Citing Cases

Winters Bros. Rec. Corp. v. H.B. Millwork

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was for leave to amend its…

Welsh v. County of Albany

We affirm. Initially we reject Brownell's contention that the County's and GSF's cross motions were…