Ballan v. Waterman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ballan v. Waterman

103 A.D.2d 789, 477 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19413

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

DecidedJuly 16, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 103 A.D.2d 789 (Ballan v. Waterman) 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

Ballan v. Waterman, 103 A.D.2d 789, 477 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, seeking specific performance of an alleged oral contract for the sale of securities, defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated October 24, 1983, as denied their motion for partial summary judgment as to the cause of action for specific performance. H Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. 11A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the undisputed payment of $11,000 by plaintiff to defendant Waterman was a sufficient partial performance unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement to remove the agreement from the Statute of Frauds (Uniform Commercial Code, § 8-319, subd [b]; see Burns v McCormick, 233 NY 230; Gross v Vogel, 81 AD2d 576; cf. Anostario v Vicinanzo, 59 NY2d 662). We would note that in the event plaintiff is successful in his claim of establishing the alleged oral agreement, his recovery, if any, is limited by statute to the extent of payment actually made (Uniform Commercial Code, § 8-319, subd [b]). Lazer, J. P., Brown, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action, inter alia, seeking specific performance of an alleged oral contract for the sale of securities, defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated October 24, 1983, as denied their motion for partial summary judgment as to the cause of action for specific performance. H Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. 11A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the undisputed payment of $11,000 by plaintiff to defendant Waterman was a sufficient partial performance unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement to remove the agreement from the Statute of Frauds (Uniform Commercial Code, § 8-319, subd [b]; see Burns v McCormick, 233 NY 230; Gross v Vogel, 81 AD2d 576; cf. Anostario v Vicinanzo, 59 NY2d 662). We would note that in the event plaintiff is successful in his claim of establishing the alleged oral agreement, his recovery, if any, is limited by statute to the extent of payment actually made (Uniform Commercial Code, § 8-319, subd [b]). Lazer, J. P., Brown, Boyers and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.2d 789, 477 N.Y.S.2d 432, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballan-v-waterman-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack