Eins v. Zimmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eins v. Zimmer

13 A.D.3d 169, 787 N.Y.S.2d 224, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15121

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.3d 169 (Eins v. Zimmer) 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

Eins v. Zimmer, 13 A.D.3d 169, 787 N.Y.S.2d 224, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15121 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered May 11, 2004, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs first cause of action for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion was properly denied on the ground that even if the alleged oral joint venture agreement is unenforceable for lack of material terms, plaintiffs additional allegations, given the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see DeMicco Bros. v Consolidated Edison Co., 8 AD3d 99, 99-100 [2004]), suffice to show that the parties entered into an oral settlement agreement with respect to the alleged joint venture. It does not avail defendant that the complaint seeks damages in the amount of the alleged joint venture’s value rather than the amount of the alleged settlement (see CPLR 3017 [a]). We reject defendant’s argument that documentary evidence conclusively establishes that the alleged settlement agreement was never finalized. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered May 11, 2004, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs first cause of action for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion was properly denied on the ground that even if the alleged oral joint venture agreement is unenforceable for lack of material terms, plaintiffs additional allegations, given the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see DeMicco Bros. v Consolidated Edison Co., 8 AD3d 99, 99-100 [2004]), suffice to show that the parties entered into an oral settlement agreement with respect to the alleged joint venture. It does not avail defendant that the complaint seeks damages in the amount of the alleged joint venture’s value rather than the amount of the alleged settlement (see CPLR 3017 [a]). We reject defendant’s argument that documentary evidence conclusively establishes that the alleged settlement agreement was never finalized. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Ellerin, Marlow and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 169, 787 N.Y.S.2d 224, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eins-v-zimmer-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack