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

New York Court of Appeals

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

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 7, 2011

Docket177 SSM 17

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 952 N.E.2d 1059 (James v. Aquavella, M.D., P.C. v. Viola) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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).

Pincite

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