Summary
dismissing finder's fee claim where each of the writings relied upon by plaintiff "is limited to specific transactions expressly referred to therein, and not the particular transaction for which plaintiff now seeks a fee"
Summary of this case from Springwell Corp. v. Falcon Drilling Co., Inc.Opinion
January 22, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Francis N. Pecora, J.).
In this action for a finder's fee, arising out of plaintiff's alleged performance of services in connection with defendant's purchase of Rival Manufacturing Inc., the court properly applied New York's Statute of Frauds, given the finding of sufficient contacts with this State, as well as New York's paramount interest in protecting against unfounded claims, and the possibility of erroneous verdicts. (Intercontinental Planning v Daystrom, Inc., 24 N.Y.2d 372, rearg denied 25 N.Y.2d 959.) The writings relied upon by plaintiff do not, as a matter of law, satisfy the Statute of Frauds, since each is limited to specific transactions expressly referred to therein, and not the particular transaction for which plaintiff now seeks a fee. (See, Bazak Intl. Corp. v Mast Indus., 73 N.Y.2d 113.)
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Ellerin, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.