Galopy Corp. International, N v. v. Deutsche Bank, A.G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Galopy Corp. International, N v. v. Deutsche Bank, A.G.

2017 NY Slip Op 3599, 150 A.D.3d 416, 51 N.Y.S.3d 400

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

DecidedMay 4, 2017

Docket3886 151766/15

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 3599 (Galopy Corp. International, N v. v. Deutsche Bank, A.G.) 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

Galopy Corp. International, N v. v. Deutsche Bank, A.G., 2017 NY Slip Op 3599, 150 A.D.3d 416, 51 N.Y.S.3d 400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered August 18, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the causes of action for promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and money had and received, and denied the motion to dismiss as to the cause of action for breach of contract, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the breach of contract cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

*417 The breach of contract claim is barred by the statute of frauds. The alleged oral contract had a settlement date of July 10, 2011, and therefore could not be performed within a year (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). The possibility of its being terminated earlier does not remove the contract from the scope of the statute of frauds (D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 63 NY2d 449, 456-457 [1984]). Unlike the situation in Financial Structures Ltd. v UBS AG (77 AD3d 417 [1st Dept 2010]), which involved an oral agreement with “methods of acceleration” that “would . . . advance [ ] the period of fulfillment” (id. at 418 [internal quotation marks omitted]), the termination provision in this case unwound and canceled the transaction.

The promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment claims are duplicative of the breach of contract claim (see Brown v Brown, 12 AD3d 176 [1st Dept 2004]). A claim for money had and received lies only in the absence of an agreement (Parsa v State of New York, 64 NY2d 143, 148 [1984]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered August 18, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the causes of action for promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and money had and received, and denied the motion to dismiss as to the cause of action for breach of contract, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the breach of contract cause of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

*417 The breach of contract claim is barred by the statute of frauds. The alleged oral contract had a settlement date of July 10, 2011, and therefore could not be performed within a year (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). The possibility of its being terminated earlier does not remove the contract from the scope of the statute of frauds (D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 63 NY2d 449, 456-457 [1984]). Unlike the situation in Financial Structures Ltd. v UBS AG (77 AD3d 417 [1st Dept 2010]), which involved an oral agreement with “methods of acceleration” that “would . . . advance [ ] the period of fulfillment” (id. at 418 [internal quotation marks omitted]), the termination provision in this case unwound and canceled the transaction.

The promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment claims are duplicative of the breach of contract claim (see Brown v Brown, 12 AD3d 176 [1st Dept 2004]). A claim for money had and received lies only in the absence of an agreement (Parsa v State of New York, 64 NY2d 143, 148 [1984]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Kahn and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 3599, 150 A.D.3d 416, 51 N.Y.S.3d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/galopy-corp-international-n-v-v-deutsche-bank-ag-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack