2458 Bedford Ave. Realty Corp. v. Bernard

• Decision Date: 19 January 1962
• Citation: 33 Misc.2d 271,225 N.Y.S.2d 344
• Parties: 2458 BEDFORD AVENUE REALTY CORP. v. Joe BERNARD.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 344

225 N.Y.S.2d 344

33 Misc.2d 271

2458 BEDFORD AVENUE REALTY CORP. v. Joe BERNARD.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Queens County, Part I.

Jan. 19, 1962.

Herbert M. Feinsod, New York City, for plaintiff.

Priest & Carson, Forest Hills, for defendant.

JAMES J. CONROY, Justice.

In an action to recover damages allegedly sustained as a result of the breach of a contract to enter into a lease, the defendant moves to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the contract is unenforceable under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.

The defendant, in an affidavit in support of the instant motion, argues that the contract which bottoms the plaintiff's cause of action, was oral, and, therefore, is unenforceable.

The plaintiff, in opposition, argues that while there was an oral contract to enter into a lease for a period of ten years, there has been sufficient part performance to avoid the effect of the Statute ofFrauds. This performance, the plaintiff contends, includes (1) the defendant's use and occupation of the premises from May 1, 1959, to May 6, 1959; (2) three checks delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff for, among other things, the payment of the first month's rent and two months' security and (3) that the defendant is the nephew of the sole principal of the plaintiff corporation, and that because of the closeness of the relationship and the aforementioned acts, the plaintiff made 'substantial changes in his position.'

The affidavits clearly indicate that the instant complaint seeks to recover damages for the breach of an oral contract to enter into a lease for a term of ten years. (See, generally, Baron v. Schachter, 284 App.Div. 361, 131 N.Y.S.2d 859, affd. 308 N.Y. 888, 126 N.E.2d 565.) The Court of Appeals stated in Burns v. McCormick, 233 N.Y. 230, 232, 135 N.E. 273: '* * * to enforce an oral agreement affecting rights in land * * * [t]here must be performance 'unequivocally referable' to the agreement, performance which alone and without the aid of words of promise is unintelligible or at least extraordinary unless as an incident of ownership. * * * What is done must itself supply the key to what is promised. It is not enough that what is promised may give significance to what is done.'

A party who occupies certain premises (Talamo v. Spitzmiller, 120 N.Y. 37, 23 N.E. 980, 8 L.R.A. 221; see also Unglish v. Marvin, 128 N.Y. 380, 28 N.E. 634) and pays rent (Rosen v . 250 West 50th Street Corp., 296 N.Y. 567, 68 N.E.2d 868), has not performed acts unequivocally referable to any agreement, since he may be a tenant at will, liable for rent for use and occupation. (Talamo v. Spitzmiller, supra.) The fact that the plaintiff and defendant are related does not change the requirement that the acts of part...