Flanel v. Flanel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flanel v. Flanel

152 A.D.2d 536, 543 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9718

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 152 A.D.2d 536 (Flanel v. Flanel) 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

Flanel v. Flanel, 152 A.D.2d 536, 543 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to enforce an alleged loan agreement, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated March 7, 1988, as granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment.

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

The plaintiff brought this action to recover from the defendant, his son, the amounts expended by him for the defendant’s college education. It is the plaintiff’s position that the defendant had agreed to repay him. This alleged agreement was not in writing, and the plaintiff relied primarily on letters [537]*537in which the defendant had acknowledged an obligation to repay him. However, it is apparent from the plaintiffs deposition testimony that, if such an oral promise was made, it was no more than an agreement to agree since the terms of repayment were to be "worked out in the future depending upon circumstances”. Where an essential element of a contract is left for future negotiations, there is no enforceable contract (see, Martin Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105; Willmott v Giarraputo, 5 NY2d 250; see also, Azoulay v Cassin, 128 AD2d 660; Cosomolite Mfg. Co. v Theodus, 122 AD2d 246). The court properly granted the defendant partial summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as was based on the alleged loan agreement. Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to enforce an alleged loan agreement, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Shaughnessy, J.), dated March 7, 1988, as granted the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment.

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

The plaintiff brought this action to recover from the defendant, his son, the amounts expended by him for the defendant’s college education. It is the plaintiff’s position that the defendant had agreed to repay him. This alleged agreement was not in writing, and the plaintiff relied primarily on letters [537]*537in which the defendant had acknowledged an obligation to repay him. However, it is apparent from the plaintiffs deposition testimony that, if such an oral promise was made, it was no more than an agreement to agree since the terms of repayment were to be "worked out in the future depending upon circumstances”. Where an essential element of a contract is left for future negotiations, there is no enforceable contract (see, Martin Delicatessen v Schumacher, 52 NY2d 105; Willmott v Giarraputo, 5 NY2d 250; see also, Azoulay v Cassin, 128 AD2d 660; Cosomolite Mfg. Co. v Theodus, 122 AD2d 246). The court properly granted the defendant partial summary judgment dismissing so much of the complaint as was based on the alleged loan agreement. Bracken, J. P., Rubin, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A.D.2d 536, 543 N.Y.S.2d 501, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flanel-v-flanel-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack