AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

IRWIN SATER, Respondent-Appellant, v. WYCKOFF HEIGHTS HOSPITAL et al., Appellants-Respondents.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and substituting therefor a provision granting the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, with costs to the defendants.

The plaintiff's causes of action alleging breach of an oral employment contract should have been dismissed since the purported oral agreement contravenes the requirement that a contract to perform services for a medical facility which has been issued an operating certificate or certificate of approval be in writing and contain certain specified provisions, including "financial arrangements and charges" ( 10 NYCRR 400.4 [a] [2]; see, Weir Metro Ambu-Serv. v. Turner, 57 N.Y.2d 911). To the extent the plaintiff seeks to recover in quantum meruit and for unjust enrichment, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, those claims, which are based on the alleged oral agreement, must also be dismissed ( see, Tallini v. Business Air, 148 A.D.2d 828, 830-831; Lilling v. Slauenwhite, 145 A.D.2d 471, 472; Club Chain v. Christopher Seventh Gourmet, 74 A.D.2d 277, 284-285). Further, because there is no valid and enforceable contract, the plaintiff has no cause of action to recover damages for tortious interference with contractual relations ( see, Durante Bros. Constr. Corp. v. College Point Sports Assn., 207 A.D.2d 379).

The allegedly libelous statements made by the defendant Steven F. Gass were either true or were nonactionable expressions of opinion, clearly understood as such by the individuals to whom the statements were addressed. Therefore, summary judgment should have been granted to the Gass defendants dismissing the plaintiff's libel claim ( see, Immuno AG. v. MoorJankowski, 77 N.Y.2d 235, cert denied 500 U.S. 954).

The court properly denied the plaintiff's cross motion for leave to amend the complaint inasmuch as the proposed amendment was "`patently lacking in merit'" ( see, Kaplansky v. Kaplansky, 212 A.D.2d 667, 668). Thompson, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

SATER v. WYCKOFF HEIGHTS HOSPITAL
(Jun 3, 1996)