Edge Management Corp. v. Crossborder Exchange Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edge Management Corp. v. Crossborder Exchange Corp.

304 A.D.2d 422, 758 N.Y.S.2d 305, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4178

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

DecidedApril 17, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 422 (Edge Management Corp. v. Crossborder Exchange 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

Edge Management Corp. v. Crossborder Exchange Corp., 304 A.D.2d 422, 758 N.Y.S.2d 305, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4178 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered May 2, 2002, which, in an action for breach of contract and upon an account stated, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and awarded it the principal amount of $37,500, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, plaintiff adduced evidence that, pursuant to a telephone conversation and written correspondence, defendant undertook to pay plaintiff an easily quantifiable amount for plaintiffs referral of a candidate for employment, which amount became payable in full if the candidate remained in defendant’s employ for 90 days. Plaintiffs evidence further demonstrated that immediately subsequent to the 90th day of the candidate’s [423]*423employment, he was dismissed by defendant. The same day, defendant advised plaintiff of the dismissal and of its refusal to pay the invoice issued by plaintiff three months before and retained by defendant during that time without objection, notwithstanding its obligation under the agreement proved by plaintiff to pay the invoice within 30 days if it wished to have its obligation to plaintiff prorated in the event of the candidate’s dismissal within 90 days of his hiring.

Although defendant argues that there was no “meeting of the minds” and that its administrator lacked authority to enter into the agreement on its behalf, the record discloses that plaintiff sustained its burden to prove the enforceability of the alleged oral agreement (cf. Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105 [1981]; Marlio v McLaughlin, 288 AD2d 97 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 607 [2002]). Defendant did not carry its resulting burden by submitting admissible proof adequate to raise a triable issue as to whether the agreement was sufficiently definite or as to whether defendant’s administrator had authority to enter into the agreement (see Columbia Pictures Indus. v Stein for Senator Comm., 77 AD2d 836 [1980]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered May 2, 2002, which, in an action for breach of contract and upon an account stated, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and awarded it the principal amount of $37,500, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, plaintiff adduced evidence that, pursuant to a telephone conversation and written correspondence, defendant undertook to pay plaintiff an easily quantifiable amount for plaintiffs referral of a candidate for employment, which amount became payable in full if the candidate remained in defendant’s employ for 90 days. Plaintiffs evidence further demonstrated that immediately subsequent to the 90th day of the candidate’s [423]*423employment, he was dismissed by defendant. The same day, defendant advised plaintiff of the dismissal and of its refusal to pay the invoice issued by plaintiff three months before and retained by defendant during that time without objection, notwithstanding its obligation under the agreement proved by plaintiff to pay the invoice within 30 days if it wished to have its obligation to plaintiff prorated in the event of the candidate’s dismissal within 90 days of his hiring.

Although defendant argues that there was no “meeting of the minds” and that its administrator lacked authority to enter into the agreement on its behalf, the record discloses that plaintiff sustained its burden to prove the enforceability of the alleged oral agreement (cf. Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105 [1981]; Marlio v McLaughlin, 288 AD2d 97 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 607 [2002]). Defendant did not carry its resulting burden by submitting admissible proof adequate to raise a triable issue as to whether the agreement was sufficiently definite or as to whether defendant’s administrator had authority to enter into the agreement (see Columbia Pictures Indus. v Stein for Senator Comm., 77 AD2d 836 [1980]). Concur — Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Lerner, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 422, 758 N.Y.S.2d 305, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edge-management-corp-v-crossborder-exchange-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack