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
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT REVOCATION OF PETITIONER’S DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A CHEMICAL BLOOD-ALCOHOL TEST; TROOPER DID NOT HAVE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE PETITIONER OPERATED HIS MOTORCYCLE UNDER THE INFLUENCE.
Article 81 Guardianship Hearing Should Not Have Been Held in the Absence of the Alleged Incapacitated Person; Counsel Should Have Been Appointed for the Alleged Incapacitated Person
DEFENDANTS’ DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE APPLIED TO PLAINTIFF’S USE OF DEFENDANTS’ HOVER BOARD IN DEFENDANTS’ DRIVEWAY; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO WHICH ALLEGEDLY SHOWED HOW PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WARRANTED A SANCTION, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMAND THE TAPE OR ASK THAT IT BE PRESERVED.
Although Defendant Was Not Responsible for the Pedestrian Ramp, There Was a Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Snow Removal (from the Ramp) Created the Dangerous Condition
ZONING BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED APPLICATION TO EXTEND THE ONE-YEAR DEADLINE FOR A REBUILD OF A FIRE-DAMAGED, NON-CONFORMING HOME.
THE IMPOUNDMENT AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S CAR, WHICH WAS LEGALLY PARKED AT THE TIME OF DEFENDANT’S ARREST, WERE ILLEGAL; THE SEIZED EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT).
UNDER THE FACTS, ERROR TO ALLOW EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S FACEBOOK COMMENT AND GANG AFFILIATION AS SANDOVAL EVIDENCE.

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 © 2026 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...