Swezey v. Michael C. Fina Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Swezey v. Michael C. Fina Co., Inc.

2017 NY Slip Op 2883, 149 A.D.3d 497, 52 N.Y.S.3d 325

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 13, 2017·No. 3691 158793/14·Published

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered June 15, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing the first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*498 Plaintiff, a former at-will sales representative for defendants, commenced this action for breach of an oral contract and related claims based on an alleged promise, by defendants, to pay plaintiff commissions past his termination. The motion court properly dismissed the breach of contract and related claims because the purported oral agreement is unenforceable under the statute of frauds (see e.g. Guterman v RGA Accessories, 196 AD2d 785 [1st Dept 1993]; Bennett v Atomic Prods. Corp., 74 AD3d 1003, 1005 [2d Dept 2010]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Maz-zarelli, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Robert R. Reed, J.), entered June 15, 2016, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent of dismissing the first, second, fourth and fifth causes of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*498 Plaintiff, a former at-will sales representative for defendants, commenced this action for breach of an oral contract and related claims based on an alleged promise, by defendants, to pay plaintiff commissions past his termination. The motion court properly dismissed the breach of contract and related claims because the purported oral agreement is unenforceable under the statute of frauds (see e.g. Guterman v RGA Accessories, 196 AD2d 785 [1st Dept 1993]; Bennett v Atomic Prods. Corp., 74 AD3d 1003, 1005 [2d Dept 2010]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Maz-zarelli, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Swezey v. Michael C. Fina Co., Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 2883, 149 A.D.3d 497, 52 N.Y.S.3d 325 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

2017 NY Slip Op 2883 (Swezey v. Michael C. Fina Co., Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related