Enfeld v. Hemmerdinger Estate Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Enfeld v. Hemmerdinger Estate Corp.

34 A.D.2d 980, 312 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4476

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

DecidedJune 15, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 980 (Enfeld v. Hemmerdinger Estate 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

Enfeld v. Hemmerdinger Estate Corp., 34 A.D.2d 980, 312 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4476 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 15, 1969, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff seeks $25,000 for services rendered to defendant pursuant [981]*981to an alleged oral contract under which he was to suggest possible terms and conditions and consult with and advise defendant with respect to the possible sale of defendant’s interest in premises known as Terminal Warehouse. The acts allegedly performed by plaintiff clearly fall within subdivision 10 of section 5-701 of the General Obligations Law and thus the alleged agreement is void unless there is a written memorandum thereof. Since plaintiff concedes that there is no written memorandum, the motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Furthermore, plaintiff’s failure to comply with section 442-d of the Real Property Law precludes a recovery herein (Sorice v. DuBois, 25 A D 2d 521). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered December 15, 1969, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. Plaintiff seeks $25,000 for services rendered to defendant pursuant [981]*981to an alleged oral contract under which he was to suggest possible terms and conditions and consult with and advise defendant with respect to the possible sale of defendant’s interest in premises known as Terminal Warehouse. The acts allegedly performed by plaintiff clearly fall within subdivision 10 of section 5-701 of the General Obligations Law and thus the alleged agreement is void unless there is a written memorandum thereof. Since plaintiff concedes that there is no written memorandum, the motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Furthermore, plaintiff’s failure to comply with section 442-d of the Real Property Law precludes a recovery herein (Sorice v. DuBois, 25 A D 2d 521). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 980, 312 N.Y.S.2d 735, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enfeld-v-hemmerdinger-estate-corp-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack