Harris v. Home Indemnity Co.

New York Supreme Court

Harris v. Home Indemnity Co.

16 Misc. 2d 586, 190 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3210

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedApril 5, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 Misc. 2d 586 (Harris v. Home Indemnity Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. Home Indemnity Co., 16 Misc. 2d 586, 190 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3210 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Irving L. Levey, J.

Defendant moves to dismiss the first canse of action of the complaint pursuant to subdivision 7 of rule 107 of the Buies of Civil Practice, on the ground that the alleged oral agreement for the lifetime employment of plaintiff is void under the Statute of Frauds (Personal Property Law, § 31, subd. 1) since, by its terms, said agreement was not to be performed within a year and performance thereof was not to be completed before the end of a lifetime. It is clear that the cause of action alleged by plaintiff depends upon the continuance of a contractual liability of the defendant corporation for the duration of plaintiff’s life. The alleged contract therefore falls directly within the purview of the afore-mentioned provision despite plaintiff’s allegation that he had the right to terminate his employment at will. In an almost identical ease it was held that an oral contract, such as the one alleged in the first cause of action herein, was void under the Statute of Frauds (Houston v. American Sur. Co. of N. Y. (57 N. Y. S. 2d 290 [Hecht, J.]).

The motion to dismiss is granted. Settle order.

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

Irving L. Levey, J.

Defendant moves to dismiss the first canse of action of the complaint pursuant to subdivision 7 of rule 107 of the Buies of Civil Practice, on the ground that the alleged oral agreement for the lifetime employment of plaintiff is void under the Statute of Frauds (Personal Property Law, § 31, subd. 1) since, by its terms, said agreement was not to be performed within a year and performance thereof was not to be completed before the end of a lifetime. It is clear that the cause of action alleged by plaintiff depends upon the continuance of a contractual liability of the defendant corporation for the duration of plaintiff’s life. The alleged contract therefore falls directly within the purview of the afore-mentioned provision despite plaintiff’s allegation that he had the right to terminate his employment at will. In an almost identical ease it was held that an oral contract, such as the one alleged in the first cause of action herein, was void under the Statute of Frauds (Houston v. American Sur. Co. of N. Y. (57 N. Y. S. 2d 290 [Hecht, J.]).

The motion to dismiss is granted. Settle order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Misc. 2d 586, 190 N.Y.S.2d 157, 1957 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3210, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-home-indemnity-co-nysupct-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack