You are here: / / STATUTE OF FRAUDS (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW) REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONTRACT...

STATUTE OF FRAUDS (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW) REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONTRACT TO NEGOTIATE A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY NOT MET, PART PERFORMANCE NOT APPLICABLE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined summary judgment should not have been granted in favor of defendants’ counterclaim for a finder’s fee. General Obligations Law 5-701(a)(1) (Statute of Frauds) applies to contracts for services rendered in negotiating a business opportunity. In finding the writings did not satisfy the Statute of Frauds, the court explained the relevant criteria:

The memorandum necessary to satisfy the statute of frauds may be pieced together out of separate writings, connected with one another either expressly or by the internal evidence of subject matter and occasion … . In the event that one of the writings is unsigned, it may be read together with the signed writings, provided that they clearly refer to the same subject matter or transaction … . Here, the collective writings to which the defendants point, seeking to make out a written agreement sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds … , are insufficient since there is no writing establishing a contractual relationship between the parties which bears the signature of the plaintiff, who is the party to be charged … .

Additionally, part performance does not take the matter out of the statute of frauds. The exception to the statute of frauds for part performance has not been extended to General Obligations Law § 5-701… . Kelly v P & G Ventures 1, LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 02026, 2nd Dept 3-22-17

CONTRACT LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW) REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONTRACT TO NEGOTIATE A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY NOT MET, PART PERFORMANCE NOT APPLICABLE)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW) REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONTRACT TO NEGOTIATE A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY NOT MET, PART PERFORMANCE NOT APPLICABLE)/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW) REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONTRACT TO NEGOTIATE A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY NOT MET, PART PERFORMANCE NOT APPLICABLE)

You might also like
HERE THE “SOPHISTICATED PARTIES” TO THE COMMERCIAL LEASE PROPERLY USED INSURANCE TO ALLOCATE THE RISK OF LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES; THEREFORE THE TENANT CAN BE LIABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER’S NEGLIGENCE IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ISSUED A PROTECTIVE ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL TO INFORM DEFENDANTS’ FORMER EMPLOYEES THAT COUNSEL’S INTERESTS ARE ADVERSE TO THEIRS AND TO RECOMMEND THE FORMER EMPLOYEES RETAIN COUNSEL BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION WITH PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE THE ANESTHESIOLOGY GROUP (ATLANTIC) WAS ADDED AS A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE HAD RUN BASED SOLELY ON VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR ITS EMPLOYEE (DEBRADY) WHO HAD BEEN TIMELY SERVED, ATLANTIC’S POTENTIAL LIABILITY IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION CEASED WHEN DEBRADY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS GRANTED, ATLANTIC COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER EMPLOYEE WHO WAS NEVER A PARTY (CANTALUPO), ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF SUED A JOHN DOE, NO STEPS WERE TAKEN TO SUBSTITUTE CANTALUPO FOR THE JOHN DOE, ATLANTIC’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
“Equitable Subrogation” Doctrine Defined
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE RULED PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT WAS NOT QUALIFIED, EXPERT WAS QUALIFIED AND THE ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF GAVE INFORMED CONSENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE TIP OF PLAINTIFF THIRD-GRADER’S FINGER WAS SEVERED WHEN A DOOR IN THE SCHOOL BUILDING SLAMMED SHUT; THE DEFENDANT-SCHOOL’S (DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S [DOE’S]) MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS PROPERLY GRANTED; THE DOOR WAS NOT DEFECTIVE, THE SCHOOL HAD NO NOTICE OF A PROBLEM WITH THE DOOR, SUPERVISION COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED THE ACCIDENT, AND NYC IS NOT LIABLE FOR AN ACCIDENT ON SCHOOL (DOE) PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant’s Refusing to Be Interviewed by the Probation Department Was a Valid Ground for Sentence Enhancement
Action Against Broker for Failure to Procure Correct Coverage Should Not Have Been Dismissed/Question of Injured Worker’s Employment Status Must First Be Determined by the Workers’ Compensation Board

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO INSIST ON PROMISED MONTHLY MINIMUM PURCHASES OF... PROSECUTOR’S SUMMATION AMOUNTED TO MISCONDUCT, 911 CALL SHOULD NOT HAVE...