George Burke Co. v. Intermetro Industries Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

George Burke Co. v. Intermetro Industries Corp.

268 A.D.2d 310, 702 N.Y.S.2d 37, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 469

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

DecidedJanuary 18, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 310 (George Burke Co. v. Intermetro Industries 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

George Burke Co. v. Intermetro Industries Corp., 268 A.D.2d 310, 702 N.Y.S.2d 37, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered July 13, 1999, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, entered on or about May 24, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion to compel additional disclosure, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order, unanimously dismissed, without costs* as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The action was properly dismissed because the oral agreement alleged by plaintiff, under which he was to become and indefinitely remain defendant’s exclusive distributor for a certain product, could not be performed within a year, and is therefore void under the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]; see, Kalfin v United States Olympic Comm., 209 AD2d 279, 280; Zimmer-Masiello, Inc. v Zimmer, Inc., 159 AD2d 363, 367-368). Plaintiffs alleged contributions to the development of the product are not unequivocally referable to the alleged agreement, and are insufficient to take the alleged agreement out of the Statute of Frauds (see, Fallon v McKeon, 230 AD2d 629). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered July 13, 1999, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, entered on or about May 24, 1999, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiffs cross motion to compel additional disclosure, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the order, unanimously dismissed, without costs* as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The action was properly dismissed because the oral agreement alleged by plaintiff, under which he was to become and indefinitely remain defendant’s exclusive distributor for a certain product, could not be performed within a year, and is therefore void under the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]; see, Kalfin v United States Olympic Comm., 209 AD2d 279, 280; Zimmer-Masiello, Inc. v Zimmer, Inc., 159 AD2d 363, 367-368). Plaintiffs alleged contributions to the development of the product are not unequivocally referable to the alleged agreement, and are insufficient to take the alleged agreement out of the Statute of Frauds (see, Fallon v McKeon, 230 AD2d 629). We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unpersuasive. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 310, 702 N.Y.S.2d 37, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 469, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/george-burke-co-v-intermetro-industries-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack