Warwick Associates v. FAI Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Warwick Associates v. FAI Insurance

275 A.D.2d 653, 713 N.Y.S.2d 178, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9950

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 653 (Warwick Associates v. FAI Insurance) 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

Warwick Associates v. FAI Insurance, 275 A.D.2d 653, 713 N.Y.S.2d 178, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered June 29, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s reliance on documents expressly described as proposals for review, generated in response to disagreements between the parties over prior proposals, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to the existence of the alleged oral contract (see, Donaldson Acoustics Co. v NAB Constr. Corp., [654]*654273 AD2d 192, 193). In any event, taking into consideration the various relevant factors (see, Adjustrite Sys. v GAB Bus. Servs., 145 F3d 543, 549-551), including most notably the complexity and duration of the alleged agreement, we conclude that it was the parties’ intention not to be bound in the absence of a written contract. In any event, the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint was proper for the additional reason that the alleged oral agreement would have been void under the Statute of Frauds. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered June 29, 1999, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff’s reliance on documents expressly described as proposals for review, generated in response to disagreements between the parties over prior proposals, was insufficient to raise an issue of fact as to the existence of the alleged oral contract (see, Donaldson Acoustics Co. v NAB Constr. Corp., [654]*654273 AD2d 192, 193). In any event, taking into consideration the various relevant factors (see, Adjustrite Sys. v GAB Bus. Servs., 145 F3d 543, 549-551), including most notably the complexity and duration of the alleged agreement, we conclude that it was the parties’ intention not to be bound in the absence of a written contract. In any event, the grant of summary judgment dismissing the complaint was proper for the additional reason that the alleged oral agreement would have been void under the Statute of Frauds. Concur — Lerner, J. P., Andrias, Saxe, Buckley and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 653, 713 N.Y.S.2d 178, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/warwick-associates-v-fai-insurance-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack