Singerman v. Reyes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Singerman v. Reyes

240 A.D.2d 335, 659 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6958

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

DecidedJune 26, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 335 (Singerman v. Reyes) 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

Singerman v. Reyes, 240 A.D.2d 335, 659 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6958 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered on or about April 10, 1996, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for an extension of their time to serve a complaint or to compel defendants’ acceptance of the complaint already served, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[336]*336We agree with the motion court that the alleged oral contract was not capable of performance within one year (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]; see, D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 63 NY2d 449,456), and that plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence of part performance as would remove the alleged contract from the Statute of Frauds (see, Anostario v Vicinanzo, 59 NY2d 662, 664). Plaintiffs’ cause of action for quantum meruit is also without merit given their failure to adequately document the services they allegedly performed for defendants or, assuming that performance of such services could be documented, establish the reasonable value of those services (see, Geraldi v Melamid, 212 AD2d 575, 576). As the complaint lacks merit, the action was properly dismissed (see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, 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 April 10, 1996, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 3012 (b), and denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for an extension of their time to serve a complaint or to compel defendants’ acceptance of the complaint already served, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[336]*336We agree with the motion court that the alleged oral contract was not capable of performance within one year (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]; see, D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 63 NY2d 449,456), and that plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence of part performance as would remove the alleged contract from the Statute of Frauds (see, Anostario v Vicinanzo, 59 NY2d 662, 664). Plaintiffs’ cause of action for quantum meruit is also without merit given their failure to adequately document the services they allegedly performed for defendants or, assuming that performance of such services could be documented, establish the reasonable value of those services (see, Geraldi v Melamid, 212 AD2d 575, 576). As the complaint lacks merit, the action was properly dismissed (see, Kel Mgt. Corp. v Rogers & Wells, 64 NY2d 904). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Tom, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 335, 659 N.Y.S.2d 762, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singerman-v-reyes-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack