Sonders v. Roosevelt

New York Court of Appeals

Sonders v. Roosevelt

476 N.E.2d 996, 64 N.Y.2d 869, 487 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 15911

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 21, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 476 N.E.2d 996 (Sonders v. Roosevelt) 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

Sonders v. Roosevelt, 476 N.E.2d 996, 64 N.Y.2d 869, 487 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 15911 (N.Y. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

[871]*871OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs.

In dismissing the third cause of action, Special Term did not err in treating it as an integral part of the lifetime support agreement alleged in the first cause of action. Although the third cause of action refers to “good consideration”, it specifically alleges that the agreement concerning the car was made “as part of the aforesaid contract” alleged in the first cause of action. With respect to the plaintiff’s contention that the tape recording should satisfy the Statute of Frauds, we note as did the majority at the Appellate Division, that it is not a memorandum in writing subscribed by the defendant as is required by the statute (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur; Judge Alexander taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

[871]*871OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division, insofar as appealed from, should be affirmed, with costs.

In dismissing the third cause of action, Special Term did not err in treating it as an integral part of the lifetime support agreement alleged in the first cause of action. Although the third cause of action refers to “good consideration”, it specifically alleges that the agreement concerning the car was made “as part of the aforesaid contract” alleged in the first cause of action. With respect to the plaintiff’s contention that the tape recording should satisfy the Statute of Frauds, we note as did the majority at the Appellate Division, that it is not a memorandum in writing subscribed by the defendant as is required by the statute (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur; Judge Alexander taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 N.E.2d 996, 64 N.Y.2d 869, 487 N.Y.S.2d 551, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 15911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sonders-v-roosevelt-ny-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack