Bell v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bell v. Brown

12 A.D.3d 271, 784 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13753

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

DecidedNovember 18, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 271 (Bell v. Brown) 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

Bell v. Brown, 12 A.D.3d 271, 784 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[272]*272Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J), entered June 12, 2003, which dismissed the complaint after a nonjury trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff sought recovery for breach of an alleged joint venture agreement or, in the alternative under various equitable theories, to obtain the rights to develop a property for nonparty Federal Express. The agreement at issue did not provide for an immediate joint venture, but conditioned its formation on the parties mutually and successfully working to obtain the rights to handle the project for Federal Express. It was effectively conceded that plaintiff did no such work, and that all the work was done and expense borne by defendants. As such, it was defendants, rather than “the parties,” who succeeded in obtaining the rights to develop the property.

The sole consideration purportedly offered by plaintiff, and the basis for his equitable claims, was the use of his alleged “high level” contacts at Federal Express, which he argues was essential to make the deal happen for defendants. In fact, these “contacts” consisted of the name of the person to whom plaintiff was directed when he made a single “cold” call to Federal Express. As such, there was neither consideration for nor performance of the alleged agreement, nor did plaintiff contribute anything of value to justify any recovery (see Chipman v Steinberg, 106 AD2d 343 [1984], affd 65 NY2d 842 [1985]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[272]*272Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J), entered June 12, 2003, which dismissed the complaint after a nonjury trial, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff sought recovery for breach of an alleged joint venture agreement or, in the alternative under various equitable theories, to obtain the rights to develop a property for nonparty Federal Express. The agreement at issue did not provide for an immediate joint venture, but conditioned its formation on the parties mutually and successfully working to obtain the rights to handle the project for Federal Express. It was effectively conceded that plaintiff did no such work, and that all the work was done and expense borne by defendants. As such, it was defendants, rather than “the parties,” who succeeded in obtaining the rights to develop the property.

The sole consideration purportedly offered by plaintiff, and the basis for his equitable claims, was the use of his alleged “high level” contacts at Federal Express, which he argues was essential to make the deal happen for defendants. In fact, these “contacts” consisted of the name of the person to whom plaintiff was directed when he made a single “cold” call to Federal Express. As such, there was neither consideration for nor performance of the alleged agreement, nor did plaintiff contribute anything of value to justify any recovery (see Chipman v Steinberg, 106 AD2d 343 [1984], affd 65 NY2d 842 [1985]). Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 271, 784 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-brown-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack