6 New York opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Sabo v. Delmangreen2 sentences2012Consideration of parol evidence as to fraudulent misrepresentations is permissible despite the presence of a merger clause in a contract (see Sabo v Delman, 3 NY2d 155, 161 [1957]). 2012Consideration of parol evidence as to fraudulent misrepresentations is permissible despite the presence of a merger clause in a contract (see Sabo v Delman, 3 NY2d 155, 161 [1957]). | 2 | 3 |
Danann Realty Corp. v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2012Notably, there is no express statement in the lease that the parties disclaim reliance on oral representations (cf. Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317, 320-321 [1959]; Yellow Book Sales & Distrib. 2012Notably, there is no express statement in the lease that the parties disclaim reliance on oral representations (cf. Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317, 320-321 [1959]; Yellow Book Sales & Distrib. | 2 | 2 |
Laba v. Careygreen2 sentences1988Courts will not adopt interpretations of a contract which would render it without force and effect (see, Laba v Carey, supra, at 308), particularly in the presence of a merger clause in that contract. 1987Courts will not adopt interpretations of a contract which would render it without force and effect (see, Laba v Carey, supra, at 308), particularly in the presence of a merger clause in that contract. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cammeby's Equity Holdings LLC v. Mariner Health Care, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017Likewise, the plaintiff’s contentions that the proffered defenses are barred by the parol evidence rule and by the presence of a merger clause in the underlying asset purchase agreement are unpersuasive (see Cammeby’s Equity Holdings LLC v Mariner Health Care, Inc., 106 AD3d 563 , 564 [2013]), especially in view of the plaintiff’s failure to provide the court with the various exhibits and schedules that were appended to the agreement. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.