Tagliaferro v. Tagliaferro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tagliaferro v. Tagliaferro

116 A.D.2d 570, 497 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51421

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 570 (Tagliaferro v. Tagliaferro) 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

Tagliaferro v. Tagliaferro, 116 A.D.2d 570, 497 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, defendants Charlene Tagliaferro and Local Book Publishers, Incorporated, appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), entered January 7, 1985, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s amended complaint as against them.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Although appellants raise numerous issues on this appeal, their main contention is that Special Term erred in denying their motion for summary judgment because the amended complaint was based upon an illegal and unenforceable con[571]*571tract between plaintiff and appellant Local Book Publishers, Incorporated. They maintain that while the subject contract appears on its face to be an "employment agreement”, it was in fact a device to evade Federal and State income tax. However, it is undisputed that appellants failed to assert the affirmative defense of illegality in both their answers to the original complaint and to the amended complaint. Moreover, the record reveals that the appellants failed to raise this defense in two previous motions for summary judgment which were granted in part.

Contrary to appellants’ assertions, the alleged illegality of the contract is not apparent from the allegations in the amended complaint (cf. Herbert F. Darling, Inc. v City of Niagara Falls, 69 AD2d 989). Nor may it be concluded, based upon the evidence in the record, that appellants were not required to plead illegality as an affirmative defense because plaintiff was aware that the contract was illegal and, therefore, cannot claim surprise or prejudice (CPLR 3018 [b]; cf. Carlson v Travelers Ins. Co., 35 AD2d 351).

In view of these circumstances, we agree with Special Term that the appellants failed to establish their defense "sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in [their] favor” (CPLR 3212 [b]; Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252, 261). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, defendants Charlene Tagliaferro and Local Book Publishers, Incorporated, appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Ingrassia, J.), entered January 7, 1985, as denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s amended complaint as against them.

Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Although appellants raise numerous issues on this appeal, their main contention is that Special Term erred in denying their motion for summary judgment because the amended complaint was based upon an illegal and unenforceable con[571]*571tract between plaintiff and appellant Local Book Publishers, Incorporated. They maintain that while the subject contract appears on its face to be an "employment agreement”, it was in fact a device to evade Federal and State income tax. However, it is undisputed that appellants failed to assert the affirmative defense of illegality in both their answers to the original complaint and to the amended complaint. Moreover, the record reveals that the appellants failed to raise this defense in two previous motions for summary judgment which were granted in part.

Contrary to appellants’ assertions, the alleged illegality of the contract is not apparent from the allegations in the amended complaint (cf. Herbert F. Darling, Inc. v City of Niagara Falls, 69 AD2d 989). Nor may it be concluded, based upon the evidence in the record, that appellants were not required to plead illegality as an affirmative defense because plaintiff was aware that the contract was illegal and, therefore, cannot claim surprise or prejudice (CPLR 3018 [b]; cf. Carlson v Travelers Ins. Co., 35 AD2d 351).

In view of these circumstances, we agree with Special Term that the appellants failed to establish their defense "sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law in directing judgment in [their] favor” (CPLR 3212 [b]; Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252, 261). Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 570, 497 N.Y.S.2d 426, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tagliaferro-v-tagliaferro-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack