Osborne v. Murray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osborne v. Murray

240 A.D.2d 261, 659 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6567

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

DecidedJune 17, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 261 (Osborne v. Murray) 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

Osborne v. Murray, 240 A.D.2d 261, 659 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered February 26, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action on the ground of the Statute of Frauds, and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his third, sixth and ninth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ failure to plead the Statute of Frauds as an affirmative defense did not bar summary dismissal in these circumstances (see, Rogoff v San Juan Racing Assn., 54 NY2d 883). The checks that plaintiff asserts as a written memorandum do not contain all the essential terms of the agreement (see, McDaniel v Sangenino, 67 AD2d 698, 699). The payments are not unintelligible or extraordinary without reference to the alleged oral agreement (see, Arden Communications v Abbate, 220 AD2d 237), and do not correspond precisely to the obligation imposed by the alleged oral contract (see, Thallon & Co. v Edsil Trading Corp., 302 NY 390). As for plaintiff’s claims sounding in account stated, there is a question of fact as to whether defendants held plaintiff’s bills for an unreasonable period of time without objection (see, A & J Produce Corp. v De Palo Indus., 215 AD2d 317). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Arber, J.), entered February 26, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the fourth, fifth and sixth causes of action on the ground of the Statute of Frauds, and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his third, sixth and ninth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ failure to plead the Statute of Frauds as an affirmative defense did not bar summary dismissal in these circumstances (see, Rogoff v San Juan Racing Assn., 54 NY2d 883). The checks that plaintiff asserts as a written memorandum do not contain all the essential terms of the agreement (see, McDaniel v Sangenino, 67 AD2d 698, 699). The payments are not unintelligible or extraordinary without reference to the alleged oral agreement (see, Arden Communications v Abbate, 220 AD2d 237), and do not correspond precisely to the obligation imposed by the alleged oral contract (see, Thallon & Co. v Edsil Trading Corp., 302 NY 390). As for plaintiff’s claims sounding in account stated, there is a question of fact as to whether defendants held plaintiff’s bills for an unreasonable period of time without objection (see, A & J Produce Corp. v De Palo Indus., 215 AD2d 317). We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 261, 659 N.Y.S.2d 740, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osborne-v-murray-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack