82 Misc. 2d 310 - Brockport Developers, Inc. v. 47 Ely Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the availability of pleading the Statute of Frauds has been limited to only those parties to the oral contract sought to be enforced, their privies and successors in interest. (See, 56 N.Y.Jur., “Statute of Frauds” § 337.) The statute is not generally available to a third-party stranger to the oral contract (ibid., § 339). The bar of the statute has been characterized as “a shield and not a sword” (Kaminsky v. Abrams, 51 Misc.2d 5 , 272 N.Y.S.2d 530 ) and a personal defense available to either party to the oral contract should they see fit (Stitt v. Ward, 142 App.Div. 626 , 127 N.Y.S. 351 ), but not available to a third party or a stranger to the otherwise voidable agreement (Kaminsky v. Abrams, supra ). Similarly, it is universally conceded that the doctrine of equitable estoppel may be invoked to preclude attack upon a voidable oral agreement when to permit the same would open the door to unjust enrichment or irreparable injury (Donahue v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 10 Misc.2d 298 , 166 N.Y.S.2d 174 ) or when one of the parties, in reliance upon the oral agreement, has performed to his detriment his part of the bargain (La Rosa v. Matthews, 28 Misc.2d 929 , 214 N.Y.S.2d 463 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. v. Naramore (In Re Naramore)