James v. Aquavella, M.D., P.C. v. Viola

952 N.E.2d 1059, 17 N.Y.3d 741, 929 N.Y.S.2d 66, 2011 NY Slip Op 4722
New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 7, 2011·No. 177 SSM 17·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The Appellate Division correctly determined that the proffered writings failed to satisfy the statute of frauds (see General *742 Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). The writings, taken together, fail to contain all of the essential terms of the alleged agreement. Specifically, the writings make no mention of the alleged incorporation of the written agreement’s noncompete clause into the subsequent oral agreement between the parties.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs in a memorandum.

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

James v. Aquavella, M.D., P.C. v. Viola, 952 N.E.2d 1059, 17 N.Y.3d 741, 929 N.Y.S.2d 66, 2011 NY Slip Op 4722 (N.Y. 2011).

952 N.E.2d 1059 (James v. Aquavella, M.D., P.C. v. Viola) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kelly v. P & G Ventures 1, LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 2026 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Aquavella v. Viola
957 N.E.2d 1137 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
Viking Capital Partners, LLC v. Enterprise Bay Ridge, LLC
952 N.E.2d 1058 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)