Alba v. Lindenman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alba v. Lindenman

289 A.D.2d 550, 735 N.Y.S.2d 613, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13107

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 31, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 289 A.D.2d 550 (Alba v. Lindenman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alba v. Lindenman, 289 A.D.2d 550, 735 N.Y.S.2d 613, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kit-son, J.), dated October 12, 2000, as granted the motion of the defendant Joseph Rudy to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3211.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, former counsel to defendant Kathleen Linden-man, seeks to enforce an alleged oral promise made by Linden-man’s brother, the codefendant Joseph Rudy, to pay for his sister’s legal representation. The Supreme Court properly concluded that such a claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds, which requires that an agreement to answer for the debt of another must be in writing (see, General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [2]). Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Rudy’s alleged partial performance, i.e., two payments totaling $3,000, was not unequivocally referable to any alleged agreement between these two parties, and thus was insufficient to remove the alleged agreement from the Statute of Frauds (see, [551]*551Aversa Brokerage v Honig Ins. Agency, 249 AD2d 345; Rosenheck v Calcam Assocs., 233 AD2d 553).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kit-son, J.), dated October 12, 2000, as granted the motion of the defendant Joseph Rudy to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him pursuant to CPLR 3211.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, former counsel to defendant Kathleen Linden-man, seeks to enforce an alleged oral promise made by Linden-man’s brother, the codefendant Joseph Rudy, to pay for his sister’s legal representation. The Supreme Court properly concluded that such a claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds, which requires that an agreement to answer for the debt of another must be in writing (see, General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [2]). Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Rudy’s alleged partial performance, i.e., two payments totaling $3,000, was not unequivocally referable to any alleged agreement between these two parties, and thus was insufficient to remove the alleged agreement from the Statute of Frauds (see, [551]*551Aversa Brokerage v Honig Ins. Agency, 249 AD2d 345; Rosenheck v Calcam Assocs., 233 AD2d 553).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Santucci, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 550, 735 N.Y.S.2d 613, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alba-v-lindenman-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack