37 New York opinions name it 5 courts 1963–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG Inc. v. Aegis Group Plcgreen2 sentences2001Part performance “is based on principles of equity, and, specifically, recognition of the fact that it would be a fraud to allow one party to a real estate transaction to escape performance after permitting the other party to perform in reliance on the agreement” (Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG v Aegis Group, 93 NY2d 229, 235 ; see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [4]). 2000The Court of Appeals has recently clarified that the doctrine of part performance cannot save contracts governed by General Obligations Law § 5-701 (see, Messner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG v Aegis Group, 93 NY2d 229, 234, n 1 ) (hereinafter Messner). | 1 | 2 |
D & N Boening, Inc. v. Kirsch Beverages, Inc.green2 sentences1994Regarding the Statute of Frauds defense, New York courts have consistently held that General Obligations Law § 5-701 (a) (1) is to be strictly construed and limited to those contracts that "by their very terms have absolutely no possibility in fact and law of full performance within one year” (D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 63 NY2d 449, 454 ; Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458, 463 ; Marini v D’Apolito, 162 AD2d 391, 393 ). 1988It is well settled that under these circumstances an oral contract is considered fully performable within one year, and the Statute of Frauds defense is without merit (Blake v Voigt, 134 NY 69 ; see, D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 63 NY2d 449, 455 ). | 1 | 2 |
Valentino v. Davisgreen1 sentence2013According to the Third Department in Valentino v Davis ( 270 AD2d 635, 637 [3d Dept 2000]), “[t]o the extent that plaintiff attempts to avoid the Statute of Frauds defense by arguing that the doctrine of part performance should be applied, we reject this argument. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Lynchgreen1 sentence2001As to defendant’s Statute of Frauds defense (see, General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [10]), a party’s admission to the essential terms and actual existence of the alleged oral contract is sufficient to take the agreement outside the scope of the Statute of Frauds (see, Cohon & Co. v Russell, 23 NY2d 569, 575 ; compare, Williams v Lynch, 245 AD2d 715 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 957 [party’s admission as to certain aspects of the alleged agreement insufficient where party denied other, material terms thereof]; Tallini v Business Air, 148 AD2d 828 [party’s admission as to existence of employment | 1 | 1 |
Lloyd Capital Corp. v. Pat Henchar, Inc.green1 sentence1996In the circumstances, defendant may not now rely upon any administrative writing requirement as a basis to belatedly "cancel” the completed service contract or to avoid his payment obligations thereunder, any more than defendant could now assert a general Statute of Frauds defense (see, Givens, 1996 Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 23A, General Obligations Law § 5-701, 1996 Supp Pamph, at 41-42; see also, Swerdloff v Mobil Oil Corp., 74 AD2d 258, 261-262 , Iv denied 50 NY2d 913 ). " Tf the statute [or ordinance] does not provide expressly that its violation will dep | 1 | 1 |
Swerdloff v. Mobil Oil Corp.green1 sentence1996In the circumstances, defendant may not now rely upon any administrative writing requirement as a basis to belatedly "cancel” the completed service contract or to avoid his payment obligations thereunder, any more than defendant could now assert a general Statute of Frauds defense (see, Givens, 1996 Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 23A, General Obligations Law § 5-701, 1996 Supp Pamph, at 41-42; see also, Swerdloff v Mobil Oil Corp., 74 AD2d 258, 261-262 , Iv denied 50 NY2d 913 ). " Tf the statute [or ordinance] does not provide expressly that its violation will dep | 1 | 1 |
Mortise v. 55 Liberty Owners Corp.green1 sentence1996In the circumstances, defendant may not now rely upon any administrative writing requirement as a basis to belatedly "cancel” the completed service contract or to avoid his payment obligations thereunder, any more than defendant could now assert a general Statute of Frauds defense (see, Givens, 1996 Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 23A, General Obligations Law § 5-701, 1996 Supp Pamph, at 41-42; see also, Swerdloff v Mobil Oil Corp., 74 AD2d 258, 261-262 , Iv denied 50 NY2d 913 ). " Tf the statute [or ordinance] does not provide expressly that its violation will dep | 1 | 1 |
John E. Rosasco Creameries, Inc. v. Cohengreen1 sentence1996In the circumstances, defendant may not now rely upon any administrative writing requirement as a basis to belatedly "cancel” the completed service contract or to avoid his payment obligations thereunder, any more than defendant could now assert a general Statute of Frauds defense (see, Givens, 1996 Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 23A, General Obligations Law § 5-701, 1996 Supp Pamph, at 41-42; see also, Swerdloff v Mobil Oil Corp., 74 AD2d 258, 261-262 , Iv denied 50 NY2d 913 ). " Tf the statute [or ordinance] does not provide expressly that its violation will dep | 1 | 1 |
Mortise v. 55 Liberty Owners Corp.green1 sentence1996In the circumstances, defendant may not now rely upon any administrative writing requirement as a basis to belatedly "cancel” the completed service contract or to avoid his payment obligations thereunder, any more than defendant could now assert a general Statute of Frauds defense (see, Givens, 1996 Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 23A, General Obligations Law § 5-701, 1996 Supp Pamph, at 41-42; see also, Swerdloff v Mobil Oil Corp., 74 AD2d 258, 261-262 , Iv denied 50 NY2d 913 ). " Tf the statute [or ordinance] does not provide expressly that its violation will dep | 1 | 1 |
Swerdloff v. Mobil Oil Corp.green1 sentence1996In the circumstances, defendant may not now rely upon any administrative writing requirement as a basis to belatedly "cancel” the completed service contract or to avoid his payment obligations thereunder, any more than defendant could now assert a general Statute of Frauds defense (see, Givens, 1996 Supp Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 23A, General Obligations Law § 5-701, 1996 Supp Pamph, at 41-42; see also, Swerdloff v Mobil Oil Corp., 74 AD2d 258, 261-262 , Iv denied 50 NY2d 913 ). " Tf the statute [or ordinance] does not provide expressly that its violation will dep | 1 | 1 |
Bazak International Corp. v. Mast Industries, Inc.green1 sentence1996Corp. v Mast Indus. (73 NY2d 113, 117-118): "Although a court ordinarily might take plaintiff’s affidavits into account on a dismissal motion (see, e.g., Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635-636 ), different considerations apply where the basis for the dismissal motion is a Statute of Frauds defense. | 1 | 1 |
| Parkman v. Hastingsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shirley Polykoff Advertising, Inc. v. Houbigant, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tallini v. Business Air, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001As to defendant’s Statute of Frauds defense (see, General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [10]), a party’s admission to the essential terms and actual existence of the alleged oral contract is sufficient to take the agreement outside the scope of the Statute of Frauds (see, Cohon & Co. v Russell, 23 NY2d 569, 575 ; compare, Williams v Lynch, 245 AD2d 715 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 957 [party’s admission as to certain aspects of the alleged agreement insufficient where party denied other, material terms thereof]; Tallini v Business Air, 148 AD2d 828 [party’s admission as to existence of employment 1997And given defendant’s denial of other, material aspects of the purported agreement (see, Tallini v Business Air, 148 AD2d 828, 829-830 ), and the fact that he specifically raised the Statute of Frauds defense in his answer (see, Moloney v Awad, 156 AD2d 870, 871 ), his admission that the parties agreed to live together and share expenses did not, as plaintiff urges, effect a waiver of this defense. | 2 | 1997–2001 |
Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co.
green
2 sentences1996Corp. v Mast Indus. (73 NY2d 113, 117-118): "Although a court ordinarily might take plaintiff’s affidavits into account on a dismissal motion (see, e.g., Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635-636 ), different considerations apply where the basis for the dismissal motion is a Statute of Frauds defense. 1989Although a court ordinarily might take plaintiffs affidavits into account on a dismissal motion (see, e.g., Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 635-636 ), different considerations apply where the basis for the dismissal motion is a Statute of Frauds defense. | 2 | 1989–1996 |
Intercontinental Planning, Ltd. v. Daystrom Inc.
green
2 sentences1985New York has little, if any, interest to serve here by preferring its lack of a Statute of Frauds defense (cf. Intercontinental Planning v Daystrom, Inc., 24 NY2d 372 ). 1980(Roberts v Champion Int., 52 AD2d 773 , mot for lv to app dsmd 40 NY2d 805 ; Intercontinental Planning v Daystrom, Inc., 24 NY2d 372 .) " 'Whatever the form of the action at law may be, if the proof of a promise or contract, void by statute [of Frauds], is essential to maintain it, there can be no recovery.’ ” (Roberts v Champion Inc., supra, p 773 quoting Dung v Parker, 52 NY 494, 497 .) Plaintiff maintains that defendants cannot prevail on the Statute of Frauds defense because it was not raised in their answer, citing CPLR 3018 (subd [b]). | 2 | 1980–1985 |
Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. v. New York Yankees
green
1 sentence2001Holdings, 275 AD2d 642, 643 ; Lehrer McGovern Bovis v New York Yankees, 207 AD2d 256, 259 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Morris Cohon & Co. v. Russell
green
1 sentence2001As to defendant’s Statute of Frauds defense (see, General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [10]), a party’s admission to the essential terms and actual existence of the alleged oral contract is sufficient to take the agreement outside the scope of the Statute of Frauds (see, Cohon & Co. v Russell, 23 NY2d 569, 575 ; compare, Williams v Lynch, 245 AD2d 715 , appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 957 [party’s admission as to certain aspects of the alleged agreement insufficient where party denied other, material terms thereof]; Tallini v Business Air, 148 AD2d 828 [party’s admission as to existence of employment | 1 | 2001–2001 |
New Eynon Associates, L.P. v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2001Holdings, 275 AD2d 642, 643 ; Lehrer McGovern Bovis v New York Yankees, 207 AD2d 256, 259 ). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Burns v. . McCormick
green
1 sentence1999As Judge Cardozo warned, “The peril of perjury and error is latent in the spoken promise” (Burns v McCormick, 233 NY 230, 234 , supra). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Vincent v. Seaman
green
1 sentence1998In this instance Maltais does not raise the Statute of Frauds defense and petitioner, a stranger to the assignment, cannot (see, Vincent v Seaman, 152 AD2d 841, 843 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Griffel v. Belfer
green
1 sentence1998Hence, dismissal of the fraud in the inducement cause of action at this point is premature (see, Griffel v Belfer, supra, 12 AD2d, at 610 ). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Moloney v. Awad
neutral
1 sentence1997And given defendant’s denial of other, material aspects of the purported agreement (see, Tallini v Business Air, 148 AD2d 828, 829-830 ), and the fact that he specifically raised the Statute of Frauds defense in his answer (see, Moloney v Awad, 156 AD2d 870, 871 ), his admission that the parties agreed to live together and share expenses did not, as plaintiff urges, effect a waiver of this defense. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Fuchs v. Fuchs
green
1 sentence1996It is the formality of the open-court proceeding and the authenticity provided by the transcript which are relevant to the Statute of Frauds issue, not the binding effect of the stipulation (see, Fuchs v Fuchs, 65 AD2d 595, 596 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Chosen Construction Corp. v. Syz
green
1 sentence1996Corp. v Syz ( 138 AD2d 284 ), relied upon by defendant, are inapposite, involving the situation, not here present, where a contractor or salesperson unlicensed under the Administrative Code seeks enforcement of a home improvement contract. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Dolgin v. Dolgin
green
1 sentence1996Turning to the Statute of Frauds issue, "[tjhere is sparse but persuasive authority that if there is an open court stipulation with all the authenticity it carries based on a supporting transcript, then the Statute of Frauds is not applicable” (Matter of Dolgin Eldert Corp., 31 NY2d 1, 8 , n). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Weiner & Co. v. Teitelbaum
green
1 sentence1995As this Court noted, albeit in the context of a Statute of Frauds issue but equally applicable here, "Signed and unsigned writings relating to the same transaction and containing all the essential terms of a contract may be read together to evidence a binding contract.” (Weiner & Co. v Teitelbaum, 107 AD2d 583 , citing Crabtree v Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 305 NY 48 .) Plaintiff’s January 2, 1992 response to its receipt of the AIA contract signed by appellant not only belies its claim that it considered a contract to have already been formed as a result of appellant’s December 16, 1991 lette | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Van Noy v. Corinth Central School District
green
1 sentence1995School Dist., 111 AD2d 592, 593 ; cf., Bero v Bero, 143 AD2d 866, 868 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Bero v. Bero
green
1 sentence1995School Dist., 111 AD2d 592, 593 ; cf., Bero v Bero, 143 AD2d 866, 868 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Kalfin v. United States Olympic Committee
green
1 sentence1995The IAS Court’s reliance upon the doctrine of part performance to preclude at this stage of the litigation a Statute of Frauds dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint is supported by a series of letters, executed proposals, and addenda that raise an issue of fact with respect to whether or not the time for performance of the written agreement between the parties was extended so as to preserve Oxford’s right to "finder’s fee” compensation against the Statute of Frauds defense (see, Kalfin v United States Olympic Comm., 209 AD2d 279, 280-281 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.
green
1 sentence1995As this Court noted, albeit in the context of a Statute of Frauds issue but equally applicable here, "Signed and unsigned writings relating to the same transaction and containing all the essential terms of a contract may be read together to evidence a binding contract.” (Weiner & Co. v Teitelbaum, 107 AD2d 583 , citing Crabtree v Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 305 NY 48 .) Plaintiff’s January 2, 1992 response to its receipt of the AIA contract signed by appellant not only belies its claim that it considered a contract to have already been formed as a result of appellant’s December 16, 1991 lette | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg
green
1 sentence1995Therefore, since the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded, inter alia, equitable estoppel of the Statute of Frauds defense, it was improper, upon the pleadings, to dismiss the relevant causes of action (see, Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, 272 ; Van Noy v Corinth Cent. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Marini v. D'Apolito green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Witten v. Witten neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Weiner v. McGraw-Hill, Inc. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Carvel Corp. v. Nicolini green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Anostario v. Vicinanzo green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Rogoff v. San Juan Racing Ass'n green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Rogoff v. San Juan Racing Ass'n, Inc. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Jill Real Estate, Inc. v. Smyles green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Barnum v. Frickey green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Arcuri v. Weiss green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Perdue Farms, Inc. v. Motts, Inc. of Mississippi green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Dante v. 310 Associates green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Marcoux v. Marcoux neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Bazak International Corp. v. Mast Industries, Inc. neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| LAL Leasing Corp. v. Williams neutral | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Blake v. . Voigt green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| American Bartenders School, Inc. v. 105 Madison Co. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Chambers v. Chambers neutral | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Pando v. Fernandez green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Rubin v. Rubin green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Pando v. Fernandez green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.