Tomaso, Feitner and Lane, Inc. v. Brown

New York Court of Appeals

Tomaso, Feitner and Lane, Inc. v. Brown

151 N.E.2d 221, 4 N.Y.2d 391, 175 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1958 N.Y. LEXIS 979

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 16, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 151 N.E.2d 221 (Tomaso, Feitner and Lane, Inc. v. Brown) 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

Tomaso, Feitner and Lane, Inc. v. Brown, 151 N.E.2d 221, 4 N.Y.2d 391, 175 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1958 N.Y. LEXIS 979 (N.Y. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

*393 Per Curiam.

In this action by plaintiff advertising agency to recover from defendant, stockholder of a corporation, the unpaid balance owing for advertising services (and expenses in connection therewith) rendered to the corporation, the Statute of Frauds (Personal Property Law, § 31, subd. 2) is no defense. The oral promise by defendant to make moneys available to the corporation was made not to plaintiff but to the corporation debtor (O’Connor v. Bankers Trust Co., 159 Misc. 920, 932, affd. 253 App. Div. 714, affd. 278 N. Y. 649; Barker v. Bucklin, 2 Denio 45, 60; 2 Corbin on Contracts, § 357; 2 Williston on Contracts [Rev. ed.], § 460; 49 Am. Jur., Statute of Frauds, 438 — 439; Restatement, Contracts, § 180, comment c; see, also, Tighe v. Morrison, 116 N. Y. 263, 270; Barker v. Bradley, 42 N. Y. 316; Block v. Greenfield, 137 Misc. 573; Eastwood v. Kenyon, 11 A. & E. 438, 445; 32 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 1395). Since, however, plaintiff is at best an incidental beneficiary rather than a third-party creditor beneficiary, it may not enforce the agreement made between defendant and the corporation.

Chief Judge Conway and Judges Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

*393 Per Curiam.

In this action by plaintiff advertising agency to recover from defendant, stockholder of a corporation, the unpaid balance owing for advertising services (and expenses in connection therewith) rendered to the corporation, the Statute of Frauds (Personal Property Law, § 31, subd. 2) is no defense. The oral promise by defendant to make moneys available to the corporation was made not to plaintiff but to the corporation debtor (O’Connor v. Bankers Trust Co., 159 Misc. 920, 932, affd. 253 App. Div. 714, affd. 278 N. Y. 649; Barker v. Bucklin, 2 Denio 45, 60; 2 Corbin on Contracts, § 357; 2 Williston on Contracts [Rev. ed.], § 460; 49 Am. Jur., Statute of Frauds, 438 — 439; Restatement, Contracts, § 180, comment c; see, also, Tighe v. Morrison, 116 N. Y. 263, 270; Barker v. Bradley, 42 N. Y. 316; Block v. Greenfield, 137 Misc. 573; Eastwood v. Kenyon, 11 A. & E. 438, 445; 32 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 1395). Since, however, plaintiff is at best an incidental beneficiary rather than a third-party creditor beneficiary, it may not enforce the agreement made between defendant and the corporation.

Chief Judge Conway and Judges Desmond, Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Van Voorhis and Burke concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 N.E.2d 221, 4 N.Y.2d 391, 175 N.Y.S.2d 73, 1958 N.Y. LEXIS 979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tomaso-feitner-and-lane-inc-v-brown-ny-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack