Josef Weindl, Inc. v. Braverman
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
1Per curiam
The plaintiff having served no reply to the counterclaim its motion for summary judgment was properly denied on that ground alone. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 272; United States Trust Co. v. Hardwood Operating Corp., 271 App. Div. 233.) The agreement upon which the counterclaim is based is not illegal merely because it is oral. An oral agreement is only unenforcible at the election of the party sought to be charged if the Statute of Frauds is pleaded as a defense and the agreement found within the ambit of such statute. (Matthews v. Matthews, 154 N. Y. 288; Flanagan v. Flanagan, 209 App. Div. 190.)
The…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Matthews v. . MatthewsNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Flanagan v. FlanaganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1924
3Cited by1 opinion
- Arena v. HegyhatyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968