§Why CasetextPricing

JF Capital Advisors, LLC, Appellant,v.The Lightstone Group, LLC, et al., Respondents.

Brief

28 Cited authorities

  1. Fiscal Equity v. State

    86 N.Y.2d 307 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 464 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Noting that Article XI requires state to provide "minimally adequate" facilities to all public schools

  2. 219 Broadway v. Alexander's

    46 N.Y.2d 506 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 458 times
    In 219 Broadway Corp. v Alexander's, Inc. (46 NY2d 506), the Court of Appeals affirmed a CPLR 3211 (a) (7) dismissal of a complaint which sought enforcement of a fully-executed lease.

  3. Ashwood Capital, Inc. v. OTG Management, Inc.

    99 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 140 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because the transactions in question fell outside the scope of the subject contract, the contract did not bar the unjust enrichment claim

  4. Freedman v. Chemical Constr

    43 N.Y.2d 260 (N.Y. 1977)   Cited 358 times
    Holding § 5-701 did not bar an oral agreement where no provision in the agreement directly or indirectly regulated the time for performance, despite the extreme unlikelihood of its completion within one year

  5. Snyder v. Bronfman

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 8667 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 102 times
    Holding that § 5-701 makes clear that the Statute of Frauds applies to quantum meruit claims

  6. Gem Advisors, Inc. v. Corporación Sidenor, S.A.

    667 F. Supp. 2d 308 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)   Cited 77 times
    Finding personal jurisdiction via agency where plaintiff alleged non-resident principal "stood to benefit from [its agent's] actions and contracts by receiving some or all of the sale price"

  7. Bingham v. New York City Transit Auth.

    99 N.Y.2d 355 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 75 times

    13 Argued January 14, 2003. Decided February 20, 2003. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered October 30, 2001, which affirmed an order of the Supreme Court (Robert Lippmann, J.), entered in New York County, granting a motion by defendants for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Constantine P. Kokkoris, for appellant. Lawrence Heisler, for respondents. Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley

  8. Zeising v. Kelly

    152 F. Supp. 2d 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)   Cited 74 times
    Finding "the requirement that there be a provision in the agreement for the sharing of profits and losses . . . [a]n indispensable essential of a contract of partnership."

  9. Gutkowski v. Steinbrenner

    680 F. Supp. 2d 602 (N.D.N.Y. 2010)   Cited 47 times
    Noting that "where a fraud claim arises out of the same facts as a plaintiff's breach of contract claim, with the addition only of an allegation that defendant never intended to perform the precise promises spelled out in the contract . . . , the fraud claim is redundant and plaintiff's sole remedy is for breach of contract"

  10. Morris Cohon & Co. v. Russell

    23 N.Y.2d 569 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 155 times
    Upholding "the well-established rule that in a contract action a memorandum sufficient to meet the requirements of the Statute of Frauds must contain expressly or by reasonable implication all the material terms of the agreement, including the rate of compensation if there has been agreement on that matter"