Kuffler v. List

• Decision Date: 02 October 1956
• Parties: Harry KUFFLER, Plaintiff, v. Albert A. LIST, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

144 F. Supp. 776

Harry KUFFLER, Plaintiff, v. Albert A. LIST, Defendant.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

October 2, 1956.

Schreiber, Klein & Opton, New York City, for plaintiff, Copal Mintz, Robert J. Sands, New York City, of counsel.

O'Brien, Driscoll & Raftery, New York City, for defendant, Arthur F. Driscoll, William D. Friedmann, New York City, of counsel.

DAWSON, District Judge.

This is a motion by the defendant under Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. for summary judgment on the principal ground that the two causes of action alleged in the complaint are unenforceable because of the provisions of § 31 of the Personal Property Law of the State of New York, McK. Consol.Laws, c. 41.

The first cause of action alleged in the complaint asserts that the plaintiff suggested to defendant that defendant acquire a block of approximately 930,000 shares of RKO Theatres Corporation, then owned or controlled by one Howard Hughes; that defendant requested plaintiff to bring him together with a person or persons who would approach Howard Hughes on the matter and that

"it was agreed between defendant and said Kuffler that if the latter would bring defendant together with such person, and if thereafter such person should be successful, directly or indirectly, in negotiating for and ultimately bringing about the acquisition by defendant or by defendant's designees of the approximately 930,000 shares of R. K. O. Theatres Corporation stock owned and/or controlled by said Howard Hughes, defendant would pay to plaintiff's assignor, as and for their services in suggesting to defendant the acquisition of such stock and in bringing to defendant someone who could and would negotiate for the acquisition of such stock for him, an amount equal to regular stock brokerage commissions at Stock Exchange rates on such purchase, irrespective of whether said stock, then owned and/or controlled by said Howard Hughes, were bought through the New York Stock Exchange or were purchased at private sale."

The first cause of action, which sounds in contract, seeks $89,350 because of the alleged refusal of defendant to pay the amount allegedly agreed upon.

The second cause of action asserts an action for work, labor and services on the allegation that Kuffler performed certain services for defendant, at defendant's instance and request, in connection with the acquisition of the aforesaid shares of stock; and asserts that the reasonable value of the services was $89,350.

It is conceded by both sides that the contract alleged in the first cause of action and the request alleged in the second cause of action were oral, and that no note or memorandum thereof was in writing or subscribed by defendant. It is also conceded that the contract or request, if made, was made in New York.

Section 31 of the Personal Property Law of the State of New York provides, in part:

"Every agreement, promise or undertaking is void, unless it or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith, or by his lawful agent, if such agreement, promise or undertaking * * * * * *

"10. Is a contract to pay compensation for services rendered in negotiating a loan, or in negotiating the purchase, sale, exchange, renting or leasing of any real estate or interest therein, or of a business opportunity, business, its good will, inventory, fixtures or an interest therein, including a majority of the voting stock interest in a corporation and including the creating of a partnership interest. This provision shall not apply to a contract to pay compensation to an auctioneer, an attorney at law, or a duly licensed real estate broker or real estate salesman."

The questions presented are: (1) Was the contract alleged in the first cause of action a contract which, under the terms of this statute, was void unless it was in writing; and (2) Is this statute applicable to a cause of action based not upon the contract but brought in quantum meruit to recover for services rendered?

In determining these questions, the Court must, of course, be guided by the interpretation of the statute by the Courts of the State of New York.

The answer to the second question is...