From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sladden v. Rounick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 29, 1977
59 A.D.2d 882 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Opinion

November 29, 1977


Order, Supreme Court, New York County entered on October 18, 1976, denying defendants-appellants' application for summary judgment, insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed, on the law, motion for summary judgment granted and complaint dismissed, without costs and without disbursements. The oral employment agreement which forms the basis of this suit was not, according to plaintiff's own pretrial testimony, performable within one year. He testified as follows: "Q. This discussion that you had with Mr. Rounick in Switzerland — A. What was the question? Q. The discussion as to the duration of your employment. A. It was to be two years. Q. It was to be two years? A. Two years, right. Q. Not one year? A. Correct. * * * Q. What was the duration of that agreement? A. Two years." The opposition to the motion at Special Term was in the form of an attorney's affidavit which furnished plaintiff "no succor in resisting the motion for summary judgment". (Columbia Ribbon Mfg. Co. v A-1-A Corp., 42 N.Y.2d 496, affg 54 A.D.2d 847.) This action is, accordingly, "based upon an agreement which comes within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforcible (General Obligations Law, § 5-701, subd. 1)." (Behrman v Peoples Camp Corp., 30 A.D.2d 973, affd 25 N.Y.2d 920.)

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Birns, Evans and Capozzoli, JJ.


Summaries of

Sladden v. Rounick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 29, 1977
59 A.D.2d 882 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)
Case details for

Sladden v. Rounick

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL SLADDEN, Respondent, v. HERBERT J. ROUNICK et al., Appellants, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Nov 29, 1977

Citations

59 A.D.2d 882 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977)

Citing Cases

Potito v. Fashion Fusion

Here, plaintiff alleges that her employment with defendant was to be for two years, and therefore necessarily…

Cunnison v. Richardson

There, the plaintiff, in support of her claim of breach of a two-year employment contract, referred to a…