Bee Jay Industrial Corp. v. Fina
466 N.E.2d 164, 62 N.Y.2d 851, 477 N.Y.S.2d 624, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4396
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, for reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division (98 AD2d 738). We note that defendants’ motion for summary judgment was itself predicated on the absence of a written contract as required by the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law, § 5-703, subd 2).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Bee Jay Industrial Corp. v. Fina, 466 N.E.2d 164, 62 N.Y.2d 851, 477 N.Y.S.2d 624, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4396 (N.Y. 1984).
466 N.E.2d 164 (Bee Jay Industrial Corp. v. Fina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Twersky v. Kazaks
57 A.D.3d 766 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
SJSJ Southold Realty, LLC v. Fraser
33 A.D.3d 784 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Shui Ching Chan v. Bay Ridge Park Hill Realty Co.
213 A.D.2d 467 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Moloney v. Awad
156 A.D.2d 870 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
Apostle v. Kac
113 A.D.2d 912 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)