Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Khazzam v. Tremont Advisers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided April 27, 1995Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKupferman, J.

in a memorandum as follows.

While I agree with the Court that we cannot yet determine as a matter of law that the writings constitute a contract, I would modify to dismiss the seventh affirmative defense based upon the Statute of Frauds.

The seventh affirmative defense states, "[t]he claims asserted are barred by the statute of frauds.”

There are several writings here that clearly take the matter out of the Statute of Frauds (see, Brylgrove Ltd. v Tompkins, PLC, 172 AD2d 452, 454). Accordingly, the seventh affirmative defense should be dismissed.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Limited v. TompkinsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991