Ghaffari v. Rima Investors Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ghaffari v. Rima Investors Corp.

304 A.D.2d 344, 756 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3534

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

DecidedApril 3, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 304 A.D.2d 344 (Ghaffari v. Rima Investors 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

Ghaffari v. Rima Investors Corp., 304 A.D.2d 344, 756 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered February 26, 2002, which denied plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s answer and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 14, 2002, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The complaint was properly dismissed as barred by the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [10]) and collateral estoppel (see Ryan v New York Tele. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500-501 [1984]). Although the sale at issue was excluded from Appellate Term’s determination in a prior action instituted by plaintiff to recover commissions from this and other sales on the ground that it was not yet ripe, all of the claims were based on plaintiffs purported oral agreement with defendant which was found by Appellate Term, as well as this Court (Ghaffari v Rima Invs. Corp., 266 AD2d 111 [1999], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 778 [2000]), to be unenforceable under the statute of frauds.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Lerner, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis York, J.), entered February 26, 2002, which denied plaintiffs motion to strike defendant’s answer and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the amended complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about February 14, 2002, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

The complaint was properly dismissed as barred by the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [10]) and collateral estoppel (see Ryan v New York Tele. Co., 62 NY2d 494, 500-501 [1984]). Although the sale at issue was excluded from Appellate Term’s determination in a prior action instituted by plaintiff to recover commissions from this and other sales on the ground that it was not yet ripe, all of the claims were based on plaintiffs purported oral agreement with defendant which was found by Appellate Term, as well as this Court (Ghaffari v Rima Invs. Corp., 266 AD2d 111 [1999], lv dismissed 95 NY2d 778 [2000]), to be unenforceable under the statute of frauds.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sullivan, Lerner, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 344, 756 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ghaffari-v-rima-investors-corp-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack