Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
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
Attorney(S)
Judges

TOMASO, FEITNER AND LANE, INC., Appellant, v. ARTHUR BROWN, Respondent.

Per Curiam.

In this action by plaintiff advertising agency to recover from defendant, stockholder of a corporation, the unpaid balance owing for advertising services (and expenses in connection therewith) rendered to the corporation, the Statute of Frauds (Personal Property Law, § 31, subd. 2) is no defense. The oral promise by defendant to make moneys available to the corporation was made not to plaintiff but to the corporation debtor ( O'Connor v. Bankers Trust Co., 159 Misc. 920, 932, affd. 253 App. Div. 714, affd. 278 N.Y. 649; Barker v. Bucklin, 2 Denio 45, 60; 2 Corbin on Contracts, § 357; 2 Williston on Contracts [Rev. ed.], § 460; 49 Am. Jur., Statute of Frauds, 438-439; Restatement, Contracts, § 180, comment c; see, also, Tighe v. Morrison, 116 N.Y. 263, 270; Barker v. Bradley, 42 N.Y. 316; Block v. Greenfield, 137 Misc. 573; Eastwood v. Kenyon, 11 A. E. 438, 445; 32 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1395). Since, however, plaintiff is at best an incidental beneficiary rather than a third-party creditor beneficiary, it may not enforce the agreement made between defendant and the corporation.

Chief Judge CONWAY and Judges DESMOND, DYE, FULD, FROESSEL, VAN VOORHIS and BURKE concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

TOMASO, FEITNER LANE v. BROWN
(May 16, 1958)