Papell v. Calogero

New York Court of Appeals

Papell v. Calogero

497 N.E.2d 676, 68 N.Y.2d 705, 506 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 19478

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 3, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 497 N.E.2d 676 (Papell v. Calogero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Papell v. Calogero, 497 N.E.2d 676, 68 N.Y.2d 705, 506 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 19478 (N.Y. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to plaintiff, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum, and, as so modified, the order should be affirmed.

Our examination of the record persuades us that the Appellate Division erred in concluding that there was insufficient evidence, as a matter of law, of the existence of a valid contract. The Statute of Frauds was waived by defendant by its failure to assert it in a timely manner (see, CPLR 3211 [e]). Hence, plaintiff’s testimony, combined with the document signed by the codefendant, sufficed to sustain the jury’s verdict against the claim of insufficiency. Similarly, there was sufficient evidence to support the remaining elements necessary to the compensatory portion of the award (see generally, Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 NY2d 183; PJI 3:56). Accordingly, this part of the case must be remitted to the Appellate Division for that court to exercise its power to review the facts to determine if the verdict was against the weight of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493).

As to plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, however, we agree with defendant that the award was not supported by sufficient evidence and must be dismissed (see, James v Powell, 19 NY2d 249; Walker v Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order modified, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to plaintiff, and the case remitted to the Appellate Division, Second Department, for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum, and, as so modified, the order should be affirmed.

Our examination of the record persuades us that the Appellate Division erred in concluding that there was insufficient evidence, as a matter of law, of the existence of a valid contract. The Statute of Frauds was waived by defendant by its failure to assert it in a timely manner (see, CPLR 3211 [e]). Hence, plaintiff’s testimony, combined with the document signed by the codefendant, sufficed to sustain the jury’s verdict against the claim of insufficiency. Similarly, there was sufficient evidence to support the remaining elements necessary to the compensatory portion of the award (see generally, Guard-Life Corp. v Parker Hardware Mfg. Corp., 50 NY2d 183; PJI 3:56). Accordingly, this part of the case must be remitted to the Appellate Division for that court to exercise its power to review the facts to determine if the verdict was against the weight of the evidence (see, Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493).

As to plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, however, we agree with defendant that the award was not supported by sufficient evidence and must be dismissed (see, James v Powell, 19 NY2d 249; Walker v Sheldon, 10 NY2d 401).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur in memorandum.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order modified, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 N.E.2d 676, 68 N.Y.2d 705, 506 N.Y.S.2d 309, 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 19478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/papell-v-calogero-ny-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack