§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

35 Cited authorities

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

    99 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 139 times   1 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

  2. 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

  3. Intercontinental Planning v. Daystrom

    24 N.Y.2d 372 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 334 times
    Holding that a written reference to a finder's fee for one transaction did not support a claim arising from a transaction involving different parties

  4. Snyder v. Bronfman

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 8667 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that § 5-701 makes clear that the Statute of Frauds applies to quantum meruit claims

  5. Ladenburg Thalmann & Co. v. Tim's Amusements, Inc.

    275 A.D.2d 243 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 127 times
    Holding that a letter mentioning a "fee for arranging the acquisition of Winstuff and Goodstuff" satisfied the Statute

  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. Stevens v. Publicis

    50 A.D.3d 253 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that e-mails containing the parties' names at the end constituted signed writings within the meaning of the Statute of Frauds

  8. 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"

  9. Morris Cohon & Co. v. Russell

    23 N.Y.2d 569 (N.Y. 1969)   Cited 153 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"

  10. Streit v. Bushnell

    424 F. Supp. 2d 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)   Cited 31 times
    In Streit v. Bushnell, 424 F.Supp.2d 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2006), a case similar to the instant action, an agreement akin to the Personal Management Agreement was found not to be barred by § 5-701(a)(10).