Kantor v. Watson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kantor v. Watson

167 A.D.2d 297, 562 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14054

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

DecidedNovember 27, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 297 (Kantor v. Watson) 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

Kantor v. Watson, 167 A.D.2d 297, 562 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14054 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered on or about August 16, 1989, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing seven of plaintiff’s eight causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

According to the complaint, plaintiff allegedly entered into an oral agreement with defendant to develop, produce, and market a screenplay based upon the defendant’s childhood experiences during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which defendant allegedly breached by selling the rights to her life story to a third party not joined in this action. The IAS court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss seven of the eight causes of action, on the ground that the alleged oral agreement, the terms of which are incapable of performance within one year of the making thereof, was barred by the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). Plaintiff’s second cause of action for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit was left standing and no appeal was taken from this aspect of the order.

Dismissal of the various causes of action was proper. The [298]*298payments to plaintiff contemplated under the alleged agreement clearly could not be accomplished within one year, as plaintiff was to share any compensation received from the exploitation of defendant’s screenplay. Nor did plaintiff plead any facts indicating partial performance unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement so as to give rise to an estoppel. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Burton S. Sherman, J.), entered on or about August 16, 1989, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing seven of plaintiff’s eight causes of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

According to the complaint, plaintiff allegedly entered into an oral agreement with defendant to develop, produce, and market a screenplay based upon the defendant’s childhood experiences during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which defendant allegedly breached by selling the rights to her life story to a third party not joined in this action. The IAS court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss seven of the eight causes of action, on the ground that the alleged oral agreement, the terms of which are incapable of performance within one year of the making thereof, was barred by the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). Plaintiff’s second cause of action for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit was left standing and no appeal was taken from this aspect of the order.

Dismissal of the various causes of action was proper. The [298]*298payments to plaintiff contemplated under the alleged agreement clearly could not be accomplished within one year, as plaintiff was to share any compensation received from the exploitation of defendant’s screenplay. Nor did plaintiff plead any facts indicating partial performance unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement so as to give rise to an estoppel. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 297, 562 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kantor-v-watson-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack