Opinion
June 4, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenstein, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiffs' third, fourth, and fifth causes of action are not barred by the Statute of Frauds (see, General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [2]), as the oral promise in question represents an original and independent duty by the defendants to make payment (see, e.g., Bart Schwartz v. Teller, 228 A.D.2d 630; Rowan v. Brady, 98 A.D.2d 638). We also reject the defendants' contention, raised for the first time on appeal, that there are issues of fact as to whether the promise in question comes within the Statute of Frauds.
Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.