Newmark v. Thoens & Flaunlacher, Inc.

Judgment appealed from affirmed, with costs. In our opinion the contract is not ambiguous and parol evidence as to the intention of the parties was not admissible. The contract did not give the plaintiff and his associates an exclusive agency in the “ Garment Centre Section.” (Schroeder v. Fine, 131 N. Y. Supp. 575 [not officially published]; White Co. v. White Motor Co., 159 App. Div. 716; section 449 of chapter 14 of Restatement of the Law of Agency.) Hagarty, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Carswell, J., dissent on the ground that parol evidence was admissible to…