Krinsky v. Winston

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krinsky v. Winston

32 A.D.2d 552, 299 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171

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

DecidedApril 21, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 32 A.D.2d 552 (Krinsky v. Winston) 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

Krinsky v. Winston, 32 A.D.2d 552, 299 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a partner or joint adventurer against his other partners or joint adventurers and others, inter alia, to adjudge that the partnership or venture is entitled to certain land, pursuant to the terms of oral agreements, defendants appeal from an order of the 'Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 17, 1968, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable Statutes of Fraud (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd. 1; § 5-703). Order affirmed, without costs. Seemingly, the oral agreements relied upon come within the statutory provision which rendered an oral agreement void if its performance is not to be completed before the end of a lifetime (Personal Property Law, former § 31, subd. 1; now General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd. 1). However, in our opinion, plaintiff should be afforded a plenary trial to fully explore and develop the extensive and complex real estate dealings of the parties as disclosed in the course of the alleged joint venture. There exists the possibility that proof adduced at a trial may entitle plaintiff to some relief not falling within the interdiction of the statute. In view of the prior intimate relationship between the parties, we do not feel that plaintiff should (be foreclosed at the summary judgment stage (Wilson v. La Van, 22 N Y 2d 131, 135; Matter of Phalen v. Theatrical Protective Union No. 1, 22 N Y 2d 34, 41; Sanger v. French, 157 N. Y. 213; cf. Mattikow v. Sudarsky, 248 N. Y. 404, 407-408; Dayvault v. Baruch Oil Corp., 211 F. 2d 335). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a partner or joint adventurer against his other partners or joint adventurers and others, inter alia, to adjudge that the partnership or venture is entitled to certain land, pursuant to the terms of oral agreements, defendants appeal from an order of the 'Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated June 17, 1968, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable Statutes of Fraud (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd. 1; § 5-703). Order affirmed, without costs. Seemingly, the oral agreements relied upon come within the statutory provision which rendered an oral agreement void if its performance is not to be completed before the end of a lifetime (Personal Property Law, former § 31, subd. 1; now General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd. 1). However, in our opinion, plaintiff should be afforded a plenary trial to fully explore and develop the extensive and complex real estate dealings of the parties as disclosed in the course of the alleged joint venture. There exists the possibility that proof adduced at a trial may entitle plaintiff to some relief not falling within the interdiction of the statute. In view of the prior intimate relationship between the parties, we do not feel that plaintiff should (be foreclosed at the summary judgment stage (Wilson v. La Van, 22 N Y 2d 131, 135; Matter of Phalen v. Theatrical Protective Union No. 1, 22 N Y 2d 34, 41; Sanger v. French, 157 N. Y. 213; cf. Mattikow v. Sudarsky, 248 N. Y. 404, 407-408; Dayvault v. Baruch Oil Corp., 211 F. 2d 335). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Rabin, Hopkins and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.2d 552, 299 N.Y.S.2d 910, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krinsky-v-winston-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack