De Angelis v. American Capital Access

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Angelis v. American Capital Access

280 A.D.2d 409, 721 N.Y.S.2d 46, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1757

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 409 (De Angelis v. American Capital Access) 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

De Angelis v. American Capital Access, 280 A.D.2d 409, 721 N.Y.S.2d 46, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about June 7, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and equitable estoppel, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the breach of contract and equitable estoppel claims reinstated.

In dismissing plaintiff employee’s contract claim on the grounds that the parties’ alleged oral employment agreement was void under the Statute of Frauds, the motion court overlooked a clause in the defendant’s form employment agreement, a blank, unsigned copy of which, the record shows, was relied upon by the parties as a memorialization of the boilerplate portions of their agreement. The clause, which provides that defendant could terminate the agreement without cause on 30 days notice, provided it paid the employee two years base salary plus certain benefits, renders the agreement capable of performance “within one year from the making thereof’ and thus removes it from the Statute’s ambit (see, North Shore Bottling Co. v Schmidt & Sons, 22 NY2d 171; Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362). The equitable estoppel cause of action sufficiently asserts a claim sounding in misrepresentation. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about June 7, 1999, which, to the extent appealed from, granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and equitable estoppel, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the breach of contract and equitable estoppel claims reinstated.

In dismissing plaintiff employee’s contract claim on the grounds that the parties’ alleged oral employment agreement was void under the Statute of Frauds, the motion court overlooked a clause in the defendant’s form employment agreement, a blank, unsigned copy of which, the record shows, was relied upon by the parties as a memorialization of the boilerplate portions of their agreement. The clause, which provides that defendant could terminate the agreement without cause on 30 days notice, provided it paid the employee two years base salary plus certain benefits, renders the agreement capable of performance “within one year from the making thereof’ and thus removes it from the Statute’s ambit (see, North Shore Bottling Co. v Schmidt & Sons, 22 NY2d 171; Cron v Hargro Fabrics, 91 NY2d 362). The equitable estoppel cause of action sufficiently asserts a claim sounding in misrepresentation. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 409, 721 N.Y.S.2d 46, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-angelis-v-american-capital-access-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack