T. Moriarty & Son v. Case Contracting Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

T. Moriarty & Son v. Case Contracting Ltd.

287 A.D.2d 390, 731 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9930

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

DecidedOctober 25, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 390 (T. Moriarty & Son v. Case Contracting Ltd.) 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

T. Moriarty & Son v. Case Contracting Ltd., 287 A.D.2d 390, 731 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9930 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered August 15, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendants’ cross motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiiFs first and second causes of action for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment dismissing plaintiiFs breach of contract causes was properly denied. The record discloses that the parties were in accord as to the essential elements of the construction subcontract between them, there having been a meeting of the minds as to price, scope of work and time of performance. That the parties may have contemplated a more comprehensive expression of their understanding did not under the circumstances herein render their initial agreement ineffectual (see, Henri Assocs. v Saxony Carpet Co., 249 AD2d 63, 66-67; Conopco, Inc. v Wathne Ltd., 190 AD2d 587). PlaintiiFs partial performance of the agreed upon work, accepted by defendant Case without objection, as well as written confirmation of the subject subcontract objectively manifest the parties’ intent to be contractually bound and suffice at least to raise factual issues as to the viability of defendants’ Statute of Frauds defense (see, New Eynon Assocs. v Lehman Bros. Holdings, 275 AD2d 642, 643; Lehrer McGovern Bovis v New York Yankees, 207 AD2d 256, 259). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Barry Cozier, J.), entered August 15, 2000, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, denied defendants’ cross motions for summary judgment dismissing plaintiiFs first and second causes of action for breach of contract, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Summary judgment dismissing plaintiiFs breach of contract causes was properly denied. The record discloses that the parties were in accord as to the essential elements of the construction subcontract between them, there having been a meeting of the minds as to price, scope of work and time of performance. That the parties may have contemplated a more comprehensive expression of their understanding did not under the circumstances herein render their initial agreement ineffectual (see, Henri Assocs. v Saxony Carpet Co., 249 AD2d 63, 66-67; Conopco, Inc. v Wathne Ltd., 190 AD2d 587). PlaintiiFs partial performance of the agreed upon work, accepted by defendant Case without objection, as well as written confirmation of the subject subcontract objectively manifest the parties’ intent to be contractually bound and suffice at least to raise factual issues as to the viability of defendants’ Statute of Frauds defense (see, New Eynon Assocs. v Lehman Bros. Holdings, 275 AD2d 642, 643; Lehrer McGovern Bovis v New York Yankees, 207 AD2d 256, 259). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Mazzarelli, Rubin and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 390, 731 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-moriarty-son-v-case-contracting-ltd-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack