Signature Brokerage Inc. v. Group Health Inc.

• Decision Date: 11 March 2004
• Docket Number: 3103.
• Citation: 5 A.D.3d 196,2004 NY Slip Op 01670,772 N.Y.S.2d 812
• Parties: SIGNATURE BROKERAGE INC., Appellant, v. GROUP HEALTH INCORPORATED, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

5 A.D.3d 196

772 N.Y.S.2d 812

2004 NY Slip Op 01670

SIGNATURE BROKERAGE INC., Appellant, v. GROUP HEALTH INCORPORATED, Respondent.

3103.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

March 11, 2004.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered December 26, 2002, which granted defendant health insurance company's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff insurance broker's complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motion court correctly held that the first alleged oral agreement, providing for defendant's hiring of plaintiff to act as its billing administrator with respect to the new subscriber, cannot be enforced due to the lack of material terms (see Matter of Express Indus. & Term. Corp. v New York State Dept. of Transp., 93 NY2d 584, 589-590 [1999]), including the new subscriber's assent to the arrangement, and the terms and conditions of the alleged employment. The motion court also correctly held that the second alleged oral agreement, providing for defendant's payment of a broker's commission if and when Insurance Law § 4312 were amended to allow not-for-profit insurance companies to use brokers, would compensate a broker for negotiating a business opportunity, and is therefore barred by the statute of frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [10]). The September 1993 letter signed by defendant's vice-president does not indicate, inter alia, contract duration, rate of compensation or indeed any of defendant's promises given in exchange for plaintiff's services, and therefore fails to satisfy the statute of frauds (see Intercontinental Planning v Daystrom, Inc., 24 NY2d 372,...