Rosenfeld v. Schreiber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenfeld v. Schreiber

139 A.D.3d 609, 33 N.Y.S.3d 189

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

DecidedMay 26, 2016

Docket1283 650360/14

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 A.D.3d 609 (Rosenfeld v. Schreiber) 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

Rosenfeld v. Schreiber, 139 A.D.3d 609, 33 N.Y.S.3d 189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered June 9, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants Dr. Samuel Waksal, Kadmon Capital, LLC, and Kadmon Corporation, LLC’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against them on statute of frauds grounds, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*610 Plaintiff alleges that he and defendant Dr. Samuel Waksal, individually and as promoter of defendants Kadmon Capital, LLC, and Kadmon Corporation, LLC, entered into a written agreement pursuant to which he would raise $50 million from investors for a joint venture and would receive a 6% equity interest in the joint venture as compensation.

The allegations that the parties entered into a written agreement signed by both plaintiff and Waksal and setting forth all the parties’ material contractual obligations are sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds at this stage of the litigation (see Saivest Empreendimentos Imobiliarios E. Participacoes, Ltda v Elman Invs., Inc., 117 AD3d 447 [1st Dept 2014]; see also Chapman, Spira & Carson, LLC v Helix BioPharma Corp., 115 AD3d 526, 528 [1st Dept 2014]). The documentary evidence submitted by defendants does not conclusively establish that no agreement existed (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered June 9, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants Dr. Samuel Waksal, Kadmon Capital, LLC, and Kadmon Corporation, LLC’s motion to dismiss the complaint as against them on statute of frauds grounds, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

*610 Plaintiff alleges that he and defendant Dr. Samuel Waksal, individually and as promoter of defendants Kadmon Capital, LLC, and Kadmon Corporation, LLC, entered into a written agreement pursuant to which he would raise $50 million from investors for a joint venture and would receive a 6% equity interest in the joint venture as compensation.

The allegations that the parties entered into a written agreement signed by both plaintiff and Waksal and setting forth all the parties’ material contractual obligations are sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds at this stage of the litigation (see Saivest Empreendimentos Imobiliarios E. Participacoes, Ltda v Elman Invs., Inc., 117 AD3d 447 [1st Dept 2014]; see also Chapman, Spira & Carson, LLC v Helix BioPharma Corp., 115 AD3d 526, 528 [1st Dept 2014]). The documentary evidence submitted by defendants does not conclusively establish that no agreement existed (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 88 [1994]).

We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Acosta, Saxe, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A.D.3d 609, 33 N.Y.S.3d 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenfeld-v-schreiber-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack