Conseur v. Eugene

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conseur v. Eugene

248 A.D.2d 427, 668 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2326

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 427 (Conseur v. Eugene) 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

Conseur v. Eugene, 248 A.D.2d 427, 668 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered June 2, 1997, as denied those branches of their respective motions which were to dismiss the first cause of action asserted in the complaint.

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

The plaintiff and the defendants allegedly agreed that if the plaintiff continued in the defendants’ employment until the defendant corporation was sold, the defendants would pay him 10% of the net proceeds of the sale. The Supreme Court properly determined that the alleged oral contract is not barred by the Statute of Frauds as set forth in UCC 1-206, 2-201, and 8-319 (see, e.g., Miller Assocs. v Ganger, 201 AD2d 461).

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and McGinity, 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 defendants appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), entered June 2, 1997, as denied those branches of their respective motions which were to dismiss the first cause of action asserted in the complaint.

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

The plaintiff and the defendants allegedly agreed that if the plaintiff continued in the defendants’ employment until the defendant corporation was sold, the defendants would pay him 10% of the net proceeds of the sale. The Supreme Court properly determined that the alleged oral contract is not barred by the Statute of Frauds as set forth in UCC 1-206, 2-201, and 8-319 (see, e.g., Miller Assocs. v Ganger, 201 AD2d 461).

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 427, 668 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conseur-v-eugene-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack