Yao v. Bult

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yao v. Bult

245 A.D.2d 136, 666 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13005

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 136 (Yao v. Bult) 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

Yao v. Bult, 245 A.D.2d 136, 666 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about September 11, 1996, which, in an action for breach of contract, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, imposed a $10,000 sanction against plaintiff, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for permission to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed as alleging an extortionate contract (see, Stone v Freeman, 298 NY 268; People v Dioguardi, 8 NY2d 260). We would add that the alleged contract is also unenforceable because incapable of complete performance before the end of a lifetime (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). The sanction was properly imposed upon a finding that the action was “undertaken primarily * * * to harass or maliciously injure another” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]). We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered on or about September 11, 1996, which, in an action for breach of contract, inter alia, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, imposed a $10,000 sanction against plaintiff, and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for permission to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The complaint was properly dismissed as alleging an extortionate contract (see, Stone v Freeman, 298 NY 268; People v Dioguardi, 8 NY2d 260). We would add that the alleged contract is also unenforceable because incapable of complete performance before the end of a lifetime (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). The sanction was properly imposed upon a finding that the action was “undertaken primarily * * * to harass or maliciously injure another” (22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [2]). We have considered plaintiff’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 136, 666 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yao-v-bult-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack