Rauch v. Ciardullo

ROSE

Maria–Teresa Rauch, Wappingers, appellant pro se. The Catalina Law Office, Peekskill (Frank A. Catalina of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY, ROSE and CLARK, JJ.

ROSE, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Devine, J.), entered August 20, 2013 in Schoharie County, which, among other things, granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Plaintiff commenced this action against defendant, her father, alleging causes of action for, among other things, breach of contract and quantum meruit. Plaintiff alleged that defendant had orally agreed in 2001 to convey his interest in a seasonal cabin owned by him in the Town of Jefferson, Schoharie County to her in exchange for her performance of maintenance and improvements on the property. Plaintiff also alleged that she agreed to perform paralegal work for defendant in 2010 in exchange for a deed to the property. According to plaintiff, she performed her end of the bargain from 2001 until 2013, when defendant revoked her permission to use the property. Plaintiff filed mechanic's liens against the property, commenced this action to recover for the services that she allegedly performed on defendant's behalf and, by order to show cause, sought unrestricted access and exclusive use of the property. Defendant made a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, alleging that it was barred by the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds. Supreme Court agreed and granted defendant's motion, concluding that plaintiff failed to state any cognizable claims. Plaintiff appeals.

We agree with Supreme Court that plaintiff's claim for breach of contract, based on an alleged oral agreement to convey real property, is barred by the statute of frauds ( seeGeneral Obligations Law § 5–703[1]; Lowinger v. Lowinger, 287 A.D.2d 39, 44–45, 733 N.Y.S.2d 33 [2001], lv. denied98 N.Y.2d 605, 746 N.Y.S.2d 279, 773 N.E.2d 1017 [2002]; Prado v. De Latorre, 194 A.D.2d 656, 657, 599 N.Y.S.2d 124 [1993], lv. denied82 N.Y.2d 661, 605 N.Y.S.2d 6, 625 N.E.2d 591 [1993] ). The statute of frauds does not, however, preclude “quasi-contractual recovery for the reasonable value of services rendered” (Moors v. Hall, 143 A.D.2d 336, 337, 532 N.Y.S.2d 412 [1988]; see Kennedy v. Leibowitz, 303 A.D.2d 375, 376, 757 N.Y.S.2d 50 [2003]; Peters v. Morse, 96 A.D.2d 662, 662, 466 N.Y.S.2d 504 [1983] ). Accepting as true the allegations in plaintiff's complaint, they adequately set forth a cognizable claim for quantum meruit based on the alleged performance of services by plaintiff and her expectation of payment from defendant ( see Farash v. Sykes Datatronics, 59 N.Y.2d 500, 503, 465 N.Y.S.2d 917, 452 N.E.2d 1245 [1983]; Grimes v. Kaplin, 305 A.D.2d 1024, 1024, 758 N.Y.S.2d 591 [2003]; Peters v. Morse, 96 A.D.2d at 662, 466 N.Y.S.2d 504). Inasmuch as the quantum meruit cause of action is subject to a six-year statute of limitations, however, plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent that they allege the performance of services prior to April 25, 2007, which is six years from the commencement of the action ( seeCPLR 213[2]; Donahue–Halverson, Inc. v Wissing Constr. & Bldg. Servs. Corp., 95 A.D.2d 953, 953, 464 N.Y.S.2d 268 [1983] ).

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, without costs, by reversing so much thereof as granted defendant's motion to dismiss the quantum meruit cause of action for performance of service on or after April 25, 2007; motion denied to that extent; and, as so modified, affirmed. PETERS, P.J., McCARTHY and CLARK, JJ., concur.
-------- Notes: