Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PERFECT TRADING CO., INC., Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, v. GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., et al., Defendants-Respondents-Appellants.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered on or about February 10, 1995, granting defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing, inter alia, the first and second causes of action and order, same court and Justice, entered April 15, 1996, granting defendants' motion for renewal and thereupon denying their motion for summary judgment dismissing the fourth cause of action and transferring the matter to Civil Court, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered April 22, 1996, unanimously dismissed, without costs.
The first and second causes of action for breach of contract were properly dismissed since, as found by the IAS court, “at most the oral communications ․ [reduced to] writing can be construed only as an agreement to agree” and did not provide the material terms of the contract related to compensation and duration (see, Central Fed. Sav. v. National Westminster Bank, 176 A.D.2d 131, 574 N.Y.S.2d 18). These claims were likewise barred under the Statute of Frauds since any purported agreement could not be performed within a year (General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][1] ) and concerned the payment of a finder's fee (General Obligations Law § 5-701[a] [10]; Freedman v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 43 N.Y.2d 260, 267, 401 N.Y.S.2d 176, 372 N.E.2d 12).
Summary judgment was properly denied with respect to the fourth cause of action for quantum meruit based on plaintiff's procurement of an introduction to the Chairman of NAFTA Moscow, defendants' acceptance of such services, which eventually enabled defendants to purchase one spot shipment of crude oil from NAFTA Moscow and the expectation of payment by plaintiff (see, Bauman Assocs. v. H & M Intl. Transp., 171 A.D.2d 479, 484, 567 N.Y.S.2d 404; Kalfin v. United States Olympic Comm., 209 A.D.2d 279, 281, 618 N.Y.S.2d 724).
We have considered the parties' remaining contentions for affirmative relief and find them to be without merit.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: February 04, 1997
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)