Foscarinis v. Seldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foscarinis v. Seldman

192 A.D.2d 388, 596 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3791

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

DecidedApril 15, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 192 A.D.2d 388 (Foscarinis v. Seldman) 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

Foscarinis v. Seldman, 192 A.D.2d 388, 596 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert E. White, J.), entered December 27, 1991, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, [389]*389dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for age discrimination was properly granted, plaintiff having failed to allege any fact demonstrating that age was the determining factor in the termination of the parties’ business relationship, and conceding that she was unwilling to change her work schedule to meet defendants’ legitimate business needs (Ioele v Alden Press, 145 AD2d 29; Jowers v State of N. Y. Executive Dept., 42 AD2d 523, affd 34 NY2d 601).

The alleged oral agreement underlying this breach of contract action which, by its terms, was to remain in effect for as long as plaintiff was able to practice medicine, is barred by the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert E. White, J.), entered December 27, 1991, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, [389]*389dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs claim for age discrimination was properly granted, plaintiff having failed to allege any fact demonstrating that age was the determining factor in the termination of the parties’ business relationship, and conceding that she was unwilling to change her work schedule to meet defendants’ legitimate business needs (Ioele v Alden Press, 145 AD2d 29; Jowers v State of N. Y. Executive Dept., 42 AD2d 523, affd 34 NY2d 601).

The alleged oral agreement underlying this breach of contract action which, by its terms, was to remain in effect for as long as plaintiff was able to practice medicine, is barred by the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). We have reviewed plaintiffs remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin, Kupferman and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 A.D.2d 388, 596 N.Y.S.2d 369, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foscarinis-v-seldman-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack