Harman v. Spiegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harman v. Spiegel

1 A.D.2d 821, 149 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6235

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 821 (Harman v. Spiegel) 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

Harman v. Spiegel, 1 A.D.2d 821, 149 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6235 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

The order of Special Term denying defendants’ motion, pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the Statute of Frauds, should be affirmed. However, we do not think from the pleadings alone, it can be said that the agreement is one capable of being performed within one year and thus outside the statute. On these pleadings an issue is presented as to the effect of the oral agreement (Jacobson v. Jacobson, 268 App. Div. 770; High v. Pritzker, 269 App. Div. 1015). Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Botein, Rabin, Cox and Frank, JJ.

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

The order of Special Term denying defendants’ motion, pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the Statute of Frauds, should be affirmed. However, we do not think from the pleadings alone, it can be said that the agreement is one capable of being performed within one year and thus outside the statute. On these pleadings an issue is presented as to the effect of the oral agreement (Jacobson v. Jacobson, 268 App. Div. 770; High v. Pritzker, 269 App. Div. 1015). Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Botein, Rabin, Cox and Frank, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 821, 149 N.Y.S.2d 391, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harman-v-spiegel-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack