Legal Opinion
Brandwein v. Provident Mutual Life Insurance
New York Court of Appeals
Decided December 6, 1957PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDesmond, J.
Special Term, holding that this complaint states no cause of action, granted the motion of defendant for judgment on the pleadings (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 112). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed with a dissenting memorandum by one Justice. The holding below was that, because of the supposed applicability of the Statute of Frauds (Personal Property Law, § 31, subd. 1) and the parol evidence rule, the promise alleged in the complaint is unenforcible. We are unable to agree to that. Plaintiff is, of course, demanding performance of an agreement which was made orally with…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Adams v. . GilligNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Gillespie v. MoonNew York Court of Chancery · 1817
- Welles v. . YatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Donald Friedman & Co. v. NewmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1931
- Meyer v. . LathropNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Chimart Associates v. PaulNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
- Aetna Casualty And Surety Co. v. Aniero Concrete Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. New York City Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1990
- William R. Van Gemert v. The Boeing Company and Thomas R. WilcoxCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1977
- Orth-O-Vision, Inc. v. Home Box OfficeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1979
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.