Behrman v. Peoples Camp Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Behrman v. Peoples Camp Corp.

30 A.D.2d 973, 294 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3146

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 973 (Behrman v. Peoples Camp Corp.) 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

Behrman v. Peoples Camp Corp., 30 A.D.2d 973, 294 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3146 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 14, 1968, which denied defendant’s motion purusant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 5) to dismiss the complaint, reversed, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. No questions of fact were considered. The action, which is for damages for breach of an alleged two-year employment contract, is based upon an agreement which comes within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforeible (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd. 1). The memorandum written and initialed by defendant’s authorized agent or officer is insufficient to take the agreement out of the statute as it does not contain all of the essential terms of the agreement as pleaded and upon which plaintiff relies (Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 305 N. Y. 48). Nor may plaintiff, to supply the lack, rely upon the unexecuted, typewritten document prepared by himself and in places changed in his handwriting (Brause v. Goldman, 10 A D 2d 328, affd. 9 N Y 2d 620; McClure v. Rignanese, 25 A D 2d 565; Chu v. Chu, 9 A D 2d 888), inasmuch as it is not authenticated or shown to contain the agreement of the parties, by the contents of defendant’s initialed memorandum to plaintiff (cf. Sorge v. Nott, 22 A D 2d 768). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order, upon the authority of Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. (305 N. Y. 48).

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 14, 1968, which denied defendant’s motion purusant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 5) to dismiss the complaint, reversed, on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. No questions of fact were considered. The action, which is for damages for breach of an alleged two-year employment contract, is based upon an agreement which comes within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforeible (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd. 1). The memorandum written and initialed by defendant’s authorized agent or officer is insufficient to take the agreement out of the statute as it does not contain all of the essential terms of the agreement as pleaded and upon which plaintiff relies (Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 305 N. Y. 48). Nor may plaintiff, to supply the lack, rely upon the unexecuted, typewritten document prepared by himself and in places changed in his handwriting (Brause v. Goldman, 10 A D 2d 328, affd. 9 N Y 2d 620; McClure v. Rignanese, 25 A D 2d 565; Chu v. Chu, 9 A D 2d 888), inasmuch as it is not authenticated or shown to contain the agreement of the parties, by the contents of defendant’s initialed memorandum to plaintiff (cf. Sorge v. Nott, 22 A D 2d 768). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order, upon the authority of Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp. (305 N. Y. 48).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 973, 294 N.Y.S.2d 658, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/behrman-v-peoples-camp-corp-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack