From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Karel v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 27, 1987
129 A.D.2d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

April 27, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (King, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

When a written agreement provides that it cannot be changed orally, a subsequent written amendment or modification, as in this case, may be effective if signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought (General Obligations Law § 15-301; DFI Communications v Greenberg, 41 N.Y.2d 602, rearg denied 42 N.Y.2d 910). The fact that the original agreement requires that amendments or modifications be signed by all of the parties to the original agreement is not dispositive if the evidence, taken as a whole, shows that the amendment was authentic or was otherwise ratified by the parties' conduct (see, DFI Communications v Greenberg, supra, at 606; Bisbing v Sterling Precision Corp., 34 A.D.2d 427; Restatement [Second] of Contracts §§ 209, 210). This issue as well as the issue of whether (or how much of) the plaintiff's claim is time barred involve questions of fact that cannot be resolved on the present record. We find that the amendment to the original agreement, if effective, permits a shareholder to directly claim reimbursement from another shareholder for funds contributed in excess of the claimant's pro rata obligation. Additionally, the plaintiff was not required to plead the occurrence of conditions precedent in his complaint, since it is the defendant's obligation to plead their nonoccurrence (see, CPLR 3015 [a]). Accordingly, the defendant's motion was properly denied. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Karel v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 27, 1987
129 A.D.2d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Karel v. Clark

Case Details

Full title:MILTON KAREL, Respondent, v. LESTER A. CLARK, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 27, 1987

Citations

129 A.D.2d 773 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Yost v. Everyrealm, Inc.

Woodard v. Reliance Worldwide Corp.,Co. 18 Civ. 9058 (RA), 2019 WL 3288152, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2019)…

Woodard v. Reliance Worldwide Corp.

Under New York law, however, if a modification is signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought,…