Pritsker v. Soyferman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pritsker v. Soyferman

275 A.D.2d 738, 713 N.Y.S.2d 213, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9255

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

DecidedSeptember 18, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 738 (Pritsker v. Soyferman) 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

Pritsker v. Soyferman, 275 A.D.2d 738, 713 N.Y.S.2d 213, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9255 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of an oral contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated June 28, 1999, as granted the defendants’ respective cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the action was barred by the Statute of Frauds and release.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiffs gave the defendants $100,000 toward the purchase of a restaurant. According to the plaintiffs’ own allegations, the parties’ oral agreement required the defendants to repay the “loan” at a rate of $2,000 per month, including interest. By its terms, the agreement could not be performed within one year. Consequently, this action to recover the unpaid balance of the alleged loan is barred by the Statute of Frauds (see, General Obligations Law § 5-701; Aversa Broker[739]*739age v Honig Ins. Agency, 249 AD2d 345). As to the plaintiff Rita Pritsker, the action is also barred by the release executed by her in exchange for $30,000 and the defendants’ promise to hold her harmless in the event any tax claims were made against the business. The release clearly refers to the $100,000 as an “investment” and not a loan and bars Rita Pritsker from making any further claim with regard to this money (see, Booth v 3669 Delaware, 92 NY2d 934; Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover damages for breach of an oral contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rappaport, J.), dated June 28, 1999, as granted the defendants’ respective cross motions for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the grounds that the action was barred by the Statute of Frauds and release.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable to the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

The plaintiffs gave the defendants $100,000 toward the purchase of a restaurant. According to the plaintiffs’ own allegations, the parties’ oral agreement required the defendants to repay the “loan” at a rate of $2,000 per month, including interest. By its terms, the agreement could not be performed within one year. Consequently, this action to recover the unpaid balance of the alleged loan is barred by the Statute of Frauds (see, General Obligations Law § 5-701; Aversa Broker[739]*739age v Honig Ins. Agency, 249 AD2d 345). As to the plaintiff Rita Pritsker, the action is also barred by the release executed by her in exchange for $30,000 and the defendants’ promise to hold her harmless in the event any tax claims were made against the business. The release clearly refers to the $100,000 as an “investment” and not a loan and bars Rita Pritsker from making any further claim with regard to this money (see, Booth v 3669 Delaware, 92 NY2d 934; Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 NY2d 603).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 738, 713 N.Y.S.2d 213, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pritsker-v-soyferman-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack