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.
Charleen FEENEY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant, Joseph Cialone, Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant; Grosso/Jacobson Entertainment Corporation, et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents, et al., Third-Party Defendant.
In an action to recover damages for violations of Civil Rights Law § 50-b, the third-party plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Polizzi, J.), dated September 22, 1997, which granted the motion of the third-party defendants Grosso/Jacobson Entertainment Corporation, Grosso/Jacobson Productions, Inc., and Sonny Grosso, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against them.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant Joseph Cialone was sued by the plaintiff to recover damages for alleged violations of Civil Rights Law § 50-b (see, Feeney v. City of New York, 255 A.D.2d 483, 680 N.Y.S.2d 646 [decided herewith] ).
On November 5, 1996, Cialone commenced a third-party action against, among others, the respondents, alleging breach of an oral contract in which they allegedly agreed to reimburse him for legal fees incurred in defending the main action. However, in view of the fact that Cialone's submissions failed to allege consideration which could support a cause of action for breach of contract, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the third-party complaint insofar as asserted against the respondents (see, CPLR 3013; Silver v. Mohasco Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 741, 476 N.Y.S.2d 822, 465 N.E.2d 361; National Citizens' Bank v. Toplitz, 178 N.Y. 464, 467, 71 N.E. 1; 22 N.Y.Jur.2d § 66; 4 Carmody-Wait 2d §§ 29:1, 29:3).
Cialone's remaining contention is without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: November 23, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)