Summary
comparing pre-printed signature blocks in emails to “automatic imprinting, by a fax machine, of the sender's name at the top of each page transmitted,” which the New York Court of Appeals held did not satisfy the requirement for a signed writing in Parma Tile Mosaic & Marble Co., Inc. v. Estate of Short, 663 N.E.2d 633
Summary of this case from Garcia v. DEZBA Asset Recovery, Inc.Opinion
March 24, 2009.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered May 30, 2008, which, in an action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, granted defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Before: Friedman, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
The exchange of e-mails, which did not set forth the fee for plaintiff's services or an objective standard to determine it, was too indefinite to be enforceable ( see generally Cobble Hill Nursing Home v Henry Warren Corp., 74 NY2d 475, 482-484, cert denied 498 US 816). The standard of reasonableness, left for future determination by the parties themselves, rather than by a third party, was not made objective by the implied duty to determine the amount of the fee in good faith. Furthermore, the unjust enrichment claim was properly dismissed as it is duplicative of the breach of contract claim ( see Andrews v Cerberus Partners, 271 AD2d 348).
[ See 19 Misc 3d 1140(A), 2008 NY Slip Op 51081(U).]