AQUAVELLA v. VIOLA, 17 N.Y.3d 741 (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals of New York
Number: innyco20110607304
Visitors: 24
Filed: Jun. 07, 2011
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2011
Summary: OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The Appellate Division correctly determined that the proffered writings failed to satisfy the statute of frauds ( see General Obligations Law 5-701 [a] [1]). The writings, taken together, fail to contain all of the essential terms of the alleged agreement. Specifically, the writings make no mention of the alleged incorporation of the written agreement's noncompete clause into the subsequ
Summary: OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The Appellate Division correctly determined that the proffered writings failed to satisfy the statute of frauds ( see General Obligations Law 5-701 [a] [1]). The writings, taken together, fail to contain all of the essential terms of the alleged agreement. Specifically, the writings make no mention of the alleged incorporation of the written agreement's noncompete clause into the subseque..
More
OPINION OF THE COURT
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
The Appellate Division correctly determined that the proffered writings failed to satisfy the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). The writings, taken together, fail to contain all of the essential terms of the alleged agreement. Specifically, the writings make no mention of the alleged incorporation of the written agreement's noncompete clause into the subsequent oral agreement between the parties.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs in a memorandum.
Source: Leagle
