Oxbridge Partners, L. P. v. New England Video, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oxbridge Partners, L. P. v. New England Video, Ltd.

213 A.D.2d 361, 624 N.Y.S.2d 408

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

DecidedMarch 30, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 361 (Oxbridge Partners, L. P. v. New England Video, Ltd.) 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

Oxbridge Partners, L. P. v. New England Video, Ltd., 213 A.D.2d 361, 624 N.Y.S.2d 408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about July 21, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court’s reliance upon the doctrine of part performance to preclude at this stage of the litigation a Statute of Frauds dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint is supported by a series of letters, executed proposals, and addenda that raise an issue of fact with respect to whether or not the time for performance of the written agreement between the parties was extended so as to preserve Oxford’s right to "finder’s fee” compensation against the Statute of Frauds defense (see, Kalfin v United States Olympic Comm., 209 AD2d 279, 280-281). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about July 21, 1994, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court’s reliance upon the doctrine of part performance to preclude at this stage of the litigation a Statute of Frauds dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint is supported by a series of letters, executed proposals, and addenda that raise an issue of fact with respect to whether or not the time for performance of the written agreement between the parties was extended so as to preserve Oxford’s right to "finder’s fee” compensation against the Statute of Frauds defense (see, Kalfin v United States Olympic Comm., 209 AD2d 279, 280-281). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 361, 624 N.Y.S.2d 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oxbridge-partners-l-p-v-new-england-video-ltd-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack