McRay v. Citrin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McRay v. Citrin

270 A.D.2d 191, 706 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3268

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

DecidedMarch 28, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 191 (McRay v. Citrin) 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

McRay v. Citrin, 270 A.D.2d 191, 706 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about July 8, 1999, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The sole consideration given to support defendant’s promise to pay plaintiff a yearly sum of money, plaintiff’s promise of “love and affection,” did not suffice as a predicate for enforcement of the executory agreement (see, Parsons v Teller, 188 NY 318, 324). Accordingly, plaintiff’s first cause of action premised on said agreement was properly dismissed. Also without merit was plaintiff’s claim in her second cause of action that defendant was obligated, as a shareholder of the parties’ corporation, to contribute additional funds to cover necessary expenses of the corporation. Such an obligation is nowhere mentioned in [192]*192the parties’ Shareholders’ Agreement, and plaintiff did not otherwise adduce proof sufficient to demonstrate a bona fide factual issue as to the existence of the claimed obligation (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sheila Abdus-Salaam, J.), entered on or about July 8, 1999, which, inter alia, granted defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The sole consideration given to support defendant’s promise to pay plaintiff a yearly sum of money, plaintiff’s promise of “love and affection,” did not suffice as a predicate for enforcement of the executory agreement (see, Parsons v Teller, 188 NY 318, 324). Accordingly, plaintiff’s first cause of action premised on said agreement was properly dismissed. Also without merit was plaintiff’s claim in her second cause of action that defendant was obligated, as a shareholder of the parties’ corporation, to contribute additional funds to cover necessary expenses of the corporation. Such an obligation is nowhere mentioned in [192]*192the parties’ Shareholders’ Agreement, and plaintiff did not otherwise adduce proof sufficient to demonstrate a bona fide factual issue as to the existence of the claimed obligation (see, CPLR 3212 [b]; Capelin Assocs. v Globe Mfg. Corp., 34 NY2d 338). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Mazzarelli, Lerner and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 191, 706 N.Y.S.2d 27, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcray-v-citrin-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack