From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harman v. Spiegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 24, 1956
1 A.D.2d 821 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)

Opinion

February 24, 1956


The order of Special Term denying defendants' motion, pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, for judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action is barred by the Statute of Frauds, should be affirmed. However, we do not think from the pleadings alone, it can be said that the agreement is one capable of being performed within one year and thus outside the statute. On these pleadings an issue is presented as to the effect of the oral agreement ( Jacobson v. Jacobson, 268 App. Div. 770; High v. Pritzker, 269 App. Div. 1015). Order unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent.

Concur — Breitel, J.P., Botein, Rabin, Cox and Frank, JJ.


Summaries of

Harman v. Spiegel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 24, 1956
1 A.D.2d 821 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)
Case details for

Harman v. Spiegel

Case Details

Full title:BEATRICE HARMAN, Respondent, v. SAMUEL SPIEGEL, Also Known as S.P. EAGLE…

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

Date published: Feb 24, 1956

Citations

1 A.D.2d 821 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)

Citing Cases

Merrick v. New York Subways Adv. Co.

Where a writing does not contain, on its face, the entire agreement between the parties, parol evidence, not…

Lenz v. World-Wide Automobiles Corp.

This could happen at any time after the making of the agreement. If there is any ambiguity in the provision…