From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sarepa, S. A. v. Pepsico, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 30, 1997
240 A.D.2d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

June 30, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action ( see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment ( see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety ( see, Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557). The plaintiff waived any claims of economic duress by its delay in repudiating the settlement agreements promptly ( see, Sheindlin v Sheindlin, 88 A.D.2d 930, 931; see also, Leader v. Dinkler Mgt. Corp., 26 A.D.2d 683, affd 20 N.Y.2d 393; Powell v. Oman Constr. Co., 25 A.D.2d 566).

We have examined the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Thompson, J.P., Joy, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sarepa, S. A. v. Pepsico, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 30, 1997
240 A.D.2d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Sarepa, S. A. v. Pepsico, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:SAREPA, S. A., Appellant, v. PEPSICO, INC., et al., Respondents, et al.…

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

Date published: Jun 30, 1997

Citations

240 A.D.2d 720 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
660 N.Y.S.2d 995

Citing Cases

C H Engineers, v. Klargester, Inc.

Further, plaintiff's withholding of services, even if wrongful, would not have threatened defendant with…