You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, , ,

HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION.

The First Department determined defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction (by guilty plea), based upon defense counsel’s failure to advise defendant of the possibility of deportation, should not have been denied without a hearing. The decision includes a concise yet complete summary of the federal and state criteria for ineffective assistance and the burdens of proof re: a motion to vacate a conviction by plea. The court noted that credibility questions, here whether defendant’s claim he would have rejected the plea had he known of the risk of deportation, can only be resolved by a hearing:

The issue before us thus turns on whether counsel’s lack of advice on the deportation consequences of defendant’s guilty plea resulted in sufficient prejudice to warrant the withdrawal of his guilty plea. In order to prevail, a defendant must demonstrate a “reasonable probability that, [had counsel properly advised him of the implication of his plea on his immigration status], he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial” … . … [D]efendant alleges that he would have gone to trial, despite its hazards and the potentially significant incarceration that a conviction would entail, had he been advised he would be deported. Although to have done so would have meant the rejection of “the very beneficial deal” his counsel had negotiated, the motion court erred in finding that defendant’s claim was not “credible,” given the length of time defendant resided legally in the United States, and the other factors raised in his motion papers. Such credibility determinations should be made only after a hearing … . People v Samuels, 2016 NY Slip Op 06423, 1st Dept 10-4-16

CRIMINAL LAW (HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)/ATTORNEYS (INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION, HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)/VACATE CONVICTION, MOTION TO (HEARING ON MOTION TO VACATE CONVICTION REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE CREDIBILITY OF DEFENDANT’S CLAIM HE WOULD HAVE REJECTED THE PLEA BARGAIN HAD HE KNOWN OF THE RISK OF DEPORTATION)

, , ,

JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action as untimely was properly denied. The facts, which concern the sale of interests in a Russian oil company, are too complex to summarize here. The court held that the complaint alleged a breach of a 2001 joint venture investment agreement based upon an alleged failure to pay plaintiff a portion of sale proceeds in 2013, making the 2014 lawsuit timely:

 

… [T]he motion court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of their joint venture agreement and the 2001 Agreement, and for breach of defendants’ fiduciary duty. It held that although there was no written investment agreement signed by both defendants … plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the existence of a valid oral agreement by alleging that the parties agreed to the central terms of the unsigned investment agreement. It further held that the oral agreement was not void under the statute of frauds because it was capable of being performed within one year, and because the statute of frauds is generally inapplicable to joint ventures. It also rejected defendants’ argument that plaintiff’s breach of contract and breach of joint venture claims were time barred, reasoning that the claimed breach of the 2001 Agreement was defendants’ failure to pay plaintiff his percentage share of the 2013 … sale proceeds. * * *

This action was commenced within both limitations periods, because defendants “had a recurring obligation to pay plaintiff his . . . share of the profits generated by” the joint venture. … . A new claim accrued when the obligation to do so was allegedly breached in 2013. Lebedev v Blavatnik, 2016 NY Slip Op 06463, 1st Dept 10-4-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/CONTRACT LAW (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/CORPORATION LAW (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/JOINT VENTURES (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT, ALTHOUGH UNSIGNED, WAS VALID BECAUSE IT WAS CAPABLE OF BEING PERFORMED IN ONE YEAR; CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH ACCRUED IN 2013 WHEN PAYMENT REQUIRED BY THE 2001 AGREEMENT WAS NOT MADE)

NO RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE TRIAL JUDGE READ THE NOTES FROM THE JURY TO THE PARTIES VERBATIM PRIOR TO DISCUSSING RESPONSES; THAT WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, reversed defendant’s conviction because there was no record that the trial judge read the notes from the jury to the parties verbatim prior to discussing the appropriate responses:

“Where a trial transcript does not show compliance with O’Rama’s procedure as required by law, we cannot assume that the omission was remedied at an off-the-record conference that the transcript does not refer to” … . Here, the court’s response to the jury regarding the fourth note does include a limited reference to how the “parties” wished to respond to the jury’s request, suggesting that an off-the-record conference may have occurred with respect to the fourth note. Even assuming, without deciding, that this reference would suffice to remedy the O’Rama violation with respect to the fourth note, there is no such reference to the parties’ agreement in the trial court’s response to the jury regarding the fifth note. Therefore, the court’s handling of the fifth note constitutes a clear departure from the O’Rama procedure and a mode of proceedings error for which preservation is not required … . People v Robinson, 2016 NY Slip Op 06266, 1st Dept 9-29-16

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY NOTES, NO RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE TRIAL JUDGE READ THE NOTES FROM THE JURY TO THE PARTIES VERBATIM PRIOR TO DISCUSSING RESPONSES; THAT WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION)/JURY NOTES (CRIMINAL LAW, NO RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE TRIAL JUDGE READ THE NOTES FROM THE JURY TO THE PARTIES VERBATIM PRIOR TO DISCUSSING RESPONSES; THAT WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION)/MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR (JURY NOTES, NO RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE TRIAL JUDGE READ THE NOTES FROM THE JURY TO THE PARTIES VERBATIM PRIOR TO DISCUSSING RESPONSES; THAT WAS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRING REVERSAL DESPITE LACK OF PRESERVATION)

A VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY OF GRAND LARCENY BUT NOT GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE REPUGNANT; INSTRUCTING THE JURY OTHERWISE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR.

The First Department determined the jury was erroneously instructed they could not find the defendant guilty of grand larceny but not guilty of possession of stolen property. A new trial was ordered. The court explained the analytical criteria for a repugnant verdict:

The repugnancy test is “essentially a variant of the theoretical impossibility’ test that is applied in the realm of lesser included offenses” … . Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence as to both submitted counts in this case, and notwithstanding the practical remoteness of the possibility that a person who commits grand larceny will not also be guilty of criminal possession of the property he or she steals, our examination of the elements of the two crimes persuades us that it is theoretically possible for a person to possess the mental state required for guilt of grand larceny in the third degree, and at the same time lack the mental state necessary for guilt of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree. Accordingly, the mixed verdict contemplated in the challenged instruction would not have been a repugnant verdict, and the court therefore erred in instructing the jury that it was “not a legally permissible verdict.” People v Simmons, 2016 NY Slip Op 06175, 1st Dept 9-28-16

CRIMINAL LAW (A VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY OF GRAND LARCENY BUT NOT GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE REPUGNANT; INSTRUCTING THE JURY OTHERWISE WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR)/REPUGNANT VERDICT (CRIMINAL LAW, A VERDICT FINDING DEFENDANT GUILTY OF GRAND LARCENY BUT NOT GUILTY OF POSSESSION OF STOLEN PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE REPUGNANT)

PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SATISFY HIS BURDEN TO PROVE HIS INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY A PARTICULAR TRAIN AND THE OPERATOR OF THE TRAIN WAS NEGLIGENT; GRANT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AFFIRMED.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the NYC Transit Authority’s motion to set aside the verdict was properly granted. Plaintiff, who had no memory of the incident, claimed he was struck by defendant’s train due to the defendant train-operator’s (Lopez’s) negligence. The First Department found the evidence of both causation and negligence was speculative. With respect to the proof of the operator’s (Lopez’s) negligence, the court wrote:

… [A]ssuming arguendo that Lopez’s train caused plaintiff’s injury, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that Lopez could have avoided injuring plaintiff if he had activated the train’s emergency brake upon observing plaintiff’s sneakers … . * * *

The [Ct.] of Appeals has explained that a train operator “may be found negligent if he or she sees a person on the tracks from such a distance and under such other circumstances as to permit him [or her], in the exercise of reasonable care, to stop before striking the person'” (Soto v New York City Tr. Auth., 6 NY3d 487, 493 [2006] …). Contrary to the dissent’s arguments that our holding here “eviscerate[s]” Soto, this Court and our colleagues in the [2nd] Department have explained that Soto does not relieve a plaintiff of the burden to introduce competent evidence, nor does it allow a plaintiff to rely solely on conclusory assertions and mere speculation … . Obey v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06183. 1st Dept 9-27-16

 

NEGLIGENCE (TRAIN ACCIDENT, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SATISFY HIS BURDEN TO PROVE HIS INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY BEING STRUCK BY A PARTICULAR TRAIN AND THE OPERATOR OF THE TRAIN WAS NEGLIGENT; GRANT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AFFIRMED)/TRAINS (NEGLIGENCE, PLAINTIFF FAILED TO SATISFY HIS BURDEN TO PROVE HIS INJURIES WERE CAUSED BY BEING STRUCK BY A PARTICULAR TRAIN AND THE OPERATOR OF THE TRAIN WAS NEGLIGENT; GRANT OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AFFIRMED)

,

TERMINATION OF TENURED TEACHER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY RULE.

The First Department, over a dissent, determined termination of a tenured teacher for inappropriate behavior which did not violate any rule was too severe a sanction. It was alleged, inter alia, the teacher asked his eighth-grade female students about their older sisters and accepted the phone number of one 23-year-old sister:

Based on all the circumstances of the case, including the lack of any prior allegations of misconduct against petitioner during 13 years of service and the fact that the misconduct does not violate any specific rule or regulation, we find the penalty of termination sufficiently disproportionate to the offenses to shock the conscience … .

Moreover, petitioner had never been warned or reprimanded regarding the conduct at issue, and, contrary to the conclusion of the Hearing Officer, there is no evidence that a warning or reprimand or other penalty short of termination would not have caused petitioner to cease the objectionable conduct immediately.

While we share some of our dissenting colleague’s concern regarding petitioner’s behavior and his failure to express any deeper understanding of the inappropriate nature of his actions, we do not agree that the law supports petitioner’s termination at this time. Matter of Williams v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06184, 1st Dept 9-27-16

 

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (TERMINATION OF TENURED TEACHER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY RULE)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (TEACHERS, TERMINATION OF TENURED TEACHER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY RULE)/TEACHERS (TERMINATION OF TENURED TEACHER WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION FOR INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR WHICH DID NOT VIOLATE ANY RULE)

, ,

IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, PRIOR APPELLATE RULING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE; TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THE WARRANT VALID AND GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE REVERSED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Acosta, over a two-justice dissent, determined the First Department’s prior ruling that a search warrant was invalid was the law of the case. The trial court had ruled new evidence demonstrated the validity of the warrant and granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants (the city and police officers who procured and executed the search warrant). The plaintiffs, who had been pushed to the floor at gunpoint, handcuffed, and held for three hours while their apartment was searched (and trashed), sued alleging the violation of their civil rights:

This case gives us the opportunity to emphasize that when an issue is specifically decided on a motion for summary judgment, that determination is the law of the case. As such, the trial court, as well as the parties, are bound by it “absent a showing of subsequent evidence or change of law” … . Applying this rule to the case at hand, we specifically found in Delgado v City of New York (86 AD3d 502, 508 [1st Dept 2011] [Delgado I]), that the no-knock search warrant at issue was not valid. Thus, the trial court was bound by that determination absent the introduction of subsequent evidence to show otherwise. The evidence that was introduced at trial on the validity of the warrant, however, was not significantly different from what was previously before the court on the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the trial court erred in deeming the warrant valid and granting defendants’ motion for a directed verdict in their favor. * * *

Whether this Court’s conclusion regarding the validity of the search warrant in Delgado I was erroneously reached is irrelevant. The law of the case precluded the trial court from re-examining the issue (see Carmona, 92 AD3d at 492-493), and it was therefore bound by our conclusion regardless of its views on our analysis … .

At the very least, the issue as to the validity of the search warrant should have gone before the jury since the additional evidence adduced at trial did not significantly alter our analysis. Instead, acting essentially as an appellate court, the trial court effectively reversed this Court’s finding on the validity of the warrant. Delgado v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06185, 1st Dept 9-27-16

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, PRIOR APPELLATE RULING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE; TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THE WARRANT VALID AND GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE REVERSED)/CIVIL RIGHTS LAW (PRIOR APPELLATE RULING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE; TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THE WARRANT VALID AND GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE REVERSED)/CRIMINAL LAW ((IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, PRIOR APPELLATE RULING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE; TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THE WARRANT VALID AND GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE REVERSED)/LAW OF THE CASE (IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION, PRIOR APPELLATE RULING THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS INVALID BECAME THE LAW OF THE CASE; TRIAL COURT’S FINDING THE WARRANT VALID AND GRANTING A DIRECTED VERDICT IN FAVOR OF THE POLICE REVERSED)

OFFICE OF MEDICAID INSPECTOR GENERAL COULD NOT SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERPAYMENTS IN AN AMOUNT HIGHER THAN SPECIFICALLY INDICATED IN ITS WRITTEN NOTICE.

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the language of the written notice to petitioner from the Office of the Medicaid Inspector General (OMIG) did not allow the OMIG to seek the higher of two estimated overpayment reimbursement amounts. The terms of the final audit report (FAR) required a lower payment if the findings were not challenged, and a higher payment if the findings were challenged at a hearing. Petitioner did not request a hearing to challenge the findings, but did not make payment arrangements within the time allowed. The OMIG then notified petitioner it would withhold future reimbursement to pay off what was owed. Although the written notice of the withholding stated the lower amount would be withheld, petitioner was informed orally by OMIG the higher amount would be withheld:

Petitioner seeks to limit its Medicaid reimbursement overpayment liability, in connection with a final audit report [FAR] issued by respondent (OMIG), to the “lower confidence limit” amount of $1,460,914 set forth in the FAR. The FAR states that, although OMIG did not waive any available remedies, if petitioner did not remit payment or arrange a payment plan within 20 days, OMIG would withhold a percentage of Medicaid billings to “liquidate the lower confidence limit amount.” In the alternative, if petitioner challenged OMIG’s findings at a hearing, OMIG would seek to recover at the hearing the FAR’s higher point estimate of overpayments, which was $1,857,401. * * *

The actual FAR language states that, in the event a settlement is not reached within 20 days, OMIG will begin withholding “to recover payment and liquidate the lower confidence amount, interest, and/or penalty, not barring any other remedy at law” (emphasis added). FAR expressly states that if a settlement is not reached, OMIG will begin withholding to collect “the lower confidence amount” of $1,460,914. Thus, contrary to the dissent’s interpretation, the FAR expressly states that in the event there is no settlement, OMIG will withhold the lower confidence limit. West Midtown Mgt. Group, Inc. v State of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06111, 1st Dept 9-21-16

 

MEDICAID (OVERPAYMENT REIMBURSEMENT, OFFICE OF MEDICAID INSPECTOR GENERAL COULD NOT SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERPAYMENTS IN AN AMOUNT HIGHER THAN SPECIFICALLY INDICATED IN ITS WRITTEN NOTICE)

, ,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM “INSURANCE” IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT ENCOMPASSES SURETY BONDS.

The First Department, over an extensive dissent, determined the word “insurance” in a noncompete agreement was susceptible of two meanings, thereby precluding summary judgment. Defendant signed a noncompete agreement which prohibited the “brokering or placement of insurance.” After plaintiff started a new job during the time-period covered by the noncompete agreement with his previous employer, he brokered two “surety bonds” for two companies which had been clients of his former employer. Plaintiff argued the term “insurance” encompassed “surety bonds.” Defendants argued the term “insurance” did not encompass “surety bonds:”

… [T]the evidence produced by each side does not show that the interpretation urged by each is inevitable; rather, it shows that the language of the letter agreement is “on its face . . . reasonably susceptible of more than one interpretation” … . Accordingly, the motion court properly denied the motions for summary judgment. Frenkel Benefits, LLC v Mallory, 2016 NY Slip Op 06109, 1st Dept 9-21-16

 

INSURANCE LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM INSURANCE IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT ENCOMPASSES SURETY BONDS)/CONTRACT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM INSURANCE IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT ENCOMPASSES SURETY BONDS)/NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM INSURANCE IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT ENCOMPASSES SURETY BONDS)/SURETY BONDS (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM INSURANCE IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT ENCOMPASSES SURETY BONDS)/EMPLOYMENT LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERM INSURANCE IN A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT ENCOMPASSES SURETY BONDS)

CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, with extensive analysis of the “negotiation or consummation of a business opportunity” aspect of the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law 5-701(a)(10)), determined certain aspects of plaintiff’s unjust enrichment and quantum meruit causes of actions properly survived defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff alleged he supplied information and know-how which led to defendants’ creation and operation of a highly successful website which facilitates finding and renting apartments. The aspects of plaintiff’s causes of action which stemmed from “negotiating or consummating the business opportunity” were barred by the statute of frauds. But the aspects related to plaintiff’s assistance in the success of the on-going business were not barred by the statute of frauds. The opinion includes a detailed discussion of the limits of the “writing” requirement for any agreement to “negotiate or consummate a business opportunity:”

In the present case, the amended complaint contains allegations that, if accepted by the trier of fact, demonstrate that plaintiff’s role consisted of more than functioning as an intermediary that assisted in the negotiation or consummation of the business opportunity. Rather, [plaintiff] allegedly rendered a wide variety of services, which presumably took place after the company came to fruition, making these services related to a purpose other than “assisting in the negotiation or consummation” of a business opportunity, so as to escape the strictures of General Obligations Law 5-701(a)(10). Dorfman v Reffkin, 2016 NY Slip Op 06116, 1st Dept 9-21-16

CONTRACT LAW (CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/STATUTE OF FRAUDS (NEGOTIATION OR CONSUMMATION OF A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, NEGOTIATION OR CONSUMMATION OF A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/NEGOTIATION OR CONSUMMATION OF A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY (STATUTE OF FRAUDS, NEGOTIATION OR CONSUMMATION OF A BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY, CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/QUANTUM MERUIT (CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS)/UNJUST ENRICHMENT (CERTAIN ASPECTS OF PLAINTIFF’S QUANTUM MERUIT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED A MOTION TO DISMISS, OTHER ASPECTS WERE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS)

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