Alex Colman Inc. v. Silverman Prods. & Textiles, Inc., 212 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). · Go Syfert
Alex Colman Inc. v. Silverman Prods. & Textiles, Inc., 212 A.D.2d 452 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
52 citation events (39 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Davis v. Odn I Gmbh (nysd, 2025-03-31)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. Odn I Gmbh (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 2025 · confidence medium
Co., 212 A.D.2d 452, 453 (1st Dep’t 1995)), there is no separate and distinct wrong that would give rise to an independent claim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hayvin Gaming, LLC v. Workinman Interactive, LLC
W.D.N.Y. · 2025 · confidence medium
Co., 212 A.D.2d 452, 452 (1st Dep’t 1995)). 21 In this case, Plaintiff argues that its claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is based on evidence that “(i) Workinman’s developers did not commit full-time employment to the Hayvin Poker Project, (ii) Workinman did not perform work Hayvin Gaming requested despite falling short of its contractual hour commitment, (iii) Workinman threatened to stop working on the Hayvin Poker Project when Hayvin Gaming complained about Workinman’s hours, (iv) Workinman refused to honor its January 3, 2023 amendment to the […
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lyons v. Sigma Mgt. Holdings, LLC
N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. · 2024 · confidence medium
Jones Const. Co. , 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1st Dept 1995] [same]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) HOME INSURANCE COMPANY VS. CORNELL-DUBILIER ELECTRONICS, INC. (L-5192-96, L-2773-02 AND L-0463-05, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Co., 212 A.D.2d 452, 453 (N.Y.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Art Capital Group, LLC v. Carlyle Investment Management LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Co., 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1st Dept 1995]; see MBIA Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Emmet & Co. v. Catholic Health East
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2015 · confidence medium
Co., 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1st Dept 1995]; see Logan Advisors, LLC v Patriarch Partners, LLC, 63 AD3d 440, 443 [1st Dept 2009] [good faith claim “duplicative of the breach of contract claim because both claims arise from the same facts”].) Plaintiffs correctly aver that they were deprived of their right to receive the fruits of the indenture.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smile Train, Inc. v. Ferris Consulting Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Co., 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1st Dept 1995] [“a breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is intrinsically tied to the damages allegedly resulting from a breach of the contract”]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smile Train, Inc. v. Ferris Consulting Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Co., 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1st Dept 1995] [“a breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is intrinsically tied to the damages allegedly resulting from a breach of the contract”]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Palmieri v. Biggiani
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Co., 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1995]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Palmieri v. Biggiani
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Co., 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1995]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bostany v. Trump Organization LLC
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Co., 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1995]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Panasia Estates, Inc. v. Hudson Insurance
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Co., 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1995]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Empire One Telecommunications, Inc. v. Verizon New York, Inc.
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 2009 · confidence medium
Co., 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1st Dept 1995]; see also Cerberus Intl., Ltd. v BancTec, Inc., 16 AD3d 126, 127 [1st Dept 2005]; Hawthorne Group v RRE Ventures, 7 AD3d 320, 323 [1st Dept 2004]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Deer Park Enterprises, LLC v. Ail Systems, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Co., 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1995]; see Hawthorne Group v RRE Ventures, 7 AD3d 320, 323 [2004]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) TAG 380 v. ComMet 380, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
Co., 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1995]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hawthorne Group v. RRE Ventures
N.Y. App. Div. · 2004 · confidence medium
Co., 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1995]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sun Plaza Enterprises Corp. v. Crown Theatres
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
Co., 212 AD2d 452, 453 [1995]; Apfel v Prudential-Bache Sec., 183 AD2d 439 [1992], mod on other grounds 81 NY2d 470 [1993]; Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v Holborn Oil Co., 108 AD2d 607 [1985]; see generally, O’Brien v City of Syracuse, supra; CPLR 3211 [a] [5]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Alex Colman Inc.
v.
Silverman Products & Textiles, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 21, 1995.
212 A.D.2d 452
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered on or about June 21, 1994, which granted the motion pursuant to CPLR 7503 (b) by the petitioner for a stay of the arbitration instituted by the appellant against the petitioner before the American Arbitration Association, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court, in staying the parties’ arbitration, properly determined that the arbitration clause in the sales confirmation forms issued by the appellant in response to the purchase orders issued by the petitioner, which did not contain such an arbitration clause, constituted a material alteration of the petitioner’s purchase order, which was neither part of the parties’ contract nor binding upon the petitioner, in accordance with UCC 2-207 (2) (b). The Court of Appeals has recognized that parties to a commercial transaction will not be held to have chosen arbitration as the forum for the resolution of their disputes in the absence, as here, of an express, unequivocal agreement to that effect (Matter of Marlene Indus. Corp. [Cornac Textiles], 45 NY2d 327).

Nor is the petitioner’s application to stay the arbitration time-barred since the Court of Appeals has held that the 20 day time limitation does not apply where, as here, the proceeding to stay the arbitration is predicated solely upon the ground that no arbitration agreement between the parties exists (Matter of Matarasso [Continental Cas. Co.] 56 NY2d 264; see also, Matter of IMG Publ. [Viesti], 170 AD2d 268). Concur—Wallach, J. P., Rubin, Ross, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.