Sakow v. City King Restaurant, Inc., 281 A.D.2d 276 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Sakow v. City King Restaurant, Inc., 281 A.D.2d 276 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …oral agreement to share equally in the assets and resources they gained in their partnership. ⚠ not in text
20 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Castellotti v. Free (nyappdiv, 2016-03-08)
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002 2014 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Castellotti v. Free
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
If a contract is barred by the statute of frauds, a promissory estoppel claim is viable in the limited set of circumstances where unconscionable injury results from the reliance placed on the alleged promise (see Fleet Bank, 290 AD2d at 796-797 ; Melwani v Jain, 281 AD2d 276, 277 [1st Dept 2001]; Steele v Delverde S.R.L., 242 AD2d 414, 415 [1st Dept 1997]; WE Transp. v Suffolk Transp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ferreyr v. Soros
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The promissory estoppel claim also fails since the facts alleged do not show that defendant caused “unconscionable injury” to plaintiff as a result of any reasonable reliance she placed on his alleged promises (Melwani v Jain, 281 AD2d 276, 277 [1st Dept 2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ferreyr v. Soros
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The promissory estoppel claim also fails since the facts alleged do not show that defendant caused “unconscionable injury” to plaintiff as a result of any reasonable reliance she placed on his alleged promises (Melwani v Jain, 281 AD2d 276, 277 [1st Dept 2001]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) 745 Nostrand Retail Ltd. v. 745 Jeffco Corp.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Co., 24 AD3d 425 [2005]; Dunn v B&H Assoc., 295 AD2d 396, 397 [2002]; Melwani v Jain, 281 AD2d 276, 277 [2001]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Foster v. Kovner
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
While noting that a claim of promissory estoppel will allow plaintiff to circumvent the statute of frauds if there is at least an allegation of “infliction of unconscionable injury on plaintiff as a result of any reliance he placed on defendant’s alleged promises” (id., quoting Melwani v Jain, 281 AD2d 276, 277 [2001]), the court found that the standard was not met because there are no allegations of “unconscionable injury” in the complaint, and the conduct plaintiff complains of is not sufficiently egregious.
discussed Cited "see" Johnson v. Giles (2×)
S.D.N.Y. · 2024 · signal: accord · confidence high
Prods., Inc., 896 N.Y.S.2d 61, 66 , 71 A.D.3d 429, 434 (1st Dep’t 2010); accord Melwani v. Jain, 281 A.D.2d 276, 276 , 722 N.Y.S.2d 145, 146 (1st Dep’t 2001).
cited Cited "see" Massey v. Byrne
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Thus, the agreement was required to be in writing (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]; see Melwani v Jain, 281 AD2d 276 [1st Dept 2001]).
cited Cited "see" Massey v. Byrne
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Thus, the agreement was required to be in writing (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]; see Melwani v Jain, 281 AD2d 276 [1st Dept 2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Marion Sakow, on Behalf of City King Restaurant, Inc.
v.
City King Restaurant, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 20, 2001.
281 A.D.2d 276
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2970
Published

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered November 5, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed plaintiff shareholder’s complaint for failure to make out a prima facie case, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff shareholder’s complaint, alleging that defendant’s decedent converted and misappropriated corporate assets, was properly dismissed since plaintiff failed to adduce evidence sufficient to establish that defendant’s decedent had on any specific occasion misappropriated funds or made erroneous or deceitful entries in the corporation’s records or books (see, Greenbaum v American Metal Climax, 27 AD2d 225, 232). The purported admission of defendant’s decedent, which was disputed, was not competent, standing alone, to prove that defendant’s decedent misappropriated the corporation’s assets for his own personal use. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli and Rubin, JJ.