Rakower v. Germain

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rakower v. Germain

226 A.D.2d 264, 641 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3984

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

DecidedApril 23, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 226 A.D.2d 264 (Rakower v. Germain) 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

Rakower v. Germain, 226 A.D.2d 264, 641 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Suffolk County (James Gowan, J.), entered March 30, 1995, after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint as barred by the Statute of Frauds, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While we agree with plaintiff that the writings he adduces satisfy the Statute of Frauds (see, Fox Co. v Kaufman Org., 74 NY2d 136), we nevertheless affirm on the ground that the contract in issue is illegal, in that it involves a prospective splitting of fees in the operation of an accounting practice without the clients being informed in contravention of the Rules of the Board of Regents (8 NYCRR 29.1 [b] [3]; 29.10 [a] [2]; [b]; see, Hartman v Bell, 137 AD2d 585; Sachs v Saloshin, 138 AD2d 586). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Suffolk County (James Gowan, J.), entered March 30, 1995, after a nonjury trial, dismissing the complaint as barred by the Statute of Frauds, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While we agree with plaintiff that the writings he adduces satisfy the Statute of Frauds (see, Fox Co. v Kaufman Org., 74 NY2d 136), we nevertheless affirm on the ground that the contract in issue is illegal, in that it involves a prospective splitting of fees in the operation of an accounting practice without the clients being informed in contravention of the Rules of the Board of Regents (8 NYCRR 29.1 [b] [3]; 29.10 [a] [2]; [b]; see, Hartman v Bell, 137 AD2d 585; Sachs v Saloshin, 138 AD2d 586). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 264, 641 N.Y.S.2d 271, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rakower-v-germain-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack