December 16, 1952.
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County.
The complaint was dismissed after trial solely on the ground that subdivisions 1 and 10 of section 31 Pers. Prop. of the Personal Property Law constituted a defense to plaintiff's cause of action. Though the Statute of Frauds would apply to this suit if it were brought upon an express contract, it would not constitute a defense to an action, such as this, brought in quantum meruit to recover for services rendered. Plaintiff may be entitled to recover reasonable compensation for services actually rendered by him. ( Harmon v. Peats Co., 243 N.Y. 473; Elsfelder v. Cournand, 270 App. Div. 162; Parver v. Matthews-Kadetsky Co., 242 App. Div. 1.) Whether plaintiff rendered any services and, if rendered, whether they had any value whatever are matters which must await determination upon a full adducement of the facts. Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Peck, P.J., Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.
Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.