Opinion
887-887A
April 25, 2002.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered May 9, 2001, which, inter alia, granted the motion by the individual defendant for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 27, 2001, unanimously dismissed, without costs.
Annette G. Hasapidis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Mark D. Marderosian, for defendants-respondents.
Before: Nardelli, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Ellerin, Rubin, JJ.
Despite the attempt by plaintiff, an admitted prostitute, to characterize her claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against the individual defendant as being premised on her provision of services other than and distinct from sexual relations, the record discloses that the association between the parties was one founded upon the exchange of money for sex. It is well settled that an agreement for financial support in exchange for illicit sexual relations is violative of public policy and thus unenforceable (see, Rose v. Elias, 177 A.D.2d 415, 415-416; Kastil v. Carro, 145 A.D.2d 388, 389, lv dismissed 74 N.Y.2d 650).
The alleged oral agreement is additionally unenforceable since it is predicated solely upon past consideration (see, Pfeiff v. Kelly, 213 A.D.2d 916, 917; Clark v. Bank of New York, 185 A.D.2d 138, 140-141;Kastil v. Carro, 145 A.D.2d, supra, at 389-390).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.