Supplee v. Hallanan

• Decision Date: 06 October 1958
• Citation: 14 Misc.2d 658,179 N.Y.S.2d 725
• Parties: P. Antoinette SUPPLEE, Plaintiff, v. Walter S. HALLANAN, Defendant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court

Page 725

179 N.Y.S.2d 725

14 Misc.2d 658

P. Antoinette SUPPLEE, Plaintiff, v. Walter S. HALLANAN, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part III.

Oct. 6, 1958.

William Richter, New York City (William P. Thomas, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Alexander & Green, New York City (Donald M. Dunn, Joseph M. Callahan, New York City, of counsel), for defendant.

H. Vincent Smart, New York City (Donald A. Bettex, New York City, of counsel), appearing specially for defendant.

JOSEPH J. GAVAGAN, Justice.

Defendant moves for dismissal of the complaint pursuant to rule 107 upon the ground that the contract in suit is unenforceable under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds.

The merit of the litigation is not now to be considered nor will the court undertake to characterize the action from any standpoint of rightful claim or motive, whether patent or hidden. Actually there is no dispute that the oral contract provides a lifetime employment except, says plaintiff, she was granted a unilateral option to cancel within a year. That, she says, rendered the contract capable of full performance within a year and before the end of a lifetime.

The law is established and still adhered to that bilateral options to cancel will, according to the facts and circumstances thereof, control in determining the applicability of the Statute of Frauds. Plaintiff argues that a unilateral option is like legal effect.

A similar situation arose in Raymond Spector Co., Inc., v. Serutan Co., Sup., 60 N.Y.S.2d 212, 213, affirmed 270 App.Div. 993, 63 N.Y.S.2d 213, where, at Special Term, the court stated, with respect to contracts providing respectively for bilateral and unilateral options to terminate, that it was bound by the rule laid down in Blake v. Voight, 134 N.Y. 69, 31 N.E. 256, and further:

'I see no legal distinction between the two situations, so far as the operation of the Statute of Frauds is concerned. * * *

'Nevertheless it is the rule laid down more than half a century ago, by the highest court of this state; it has never been questioned or modified by that tribunal and has always been regarded as binding authority.'

The court there went on to say, in addition:

'Perhaps it should be reconsidered but that is not the province of this court. The is for the Court of Appeals or for the Legislature.'

However, in Harris v. Home Indemnity Co., 6 A.D.2d 861, 175 N.Y.S.2d 603, 604, the matter was again before the court and it there said:

'The rule in Blake v. Voight, 134 N.Y. 69, 31 N.E. 256, should not be extended to make enforcible an oral agreement for permanent employment, where the right to cancel or terminate is limited unilaterally to plaintiff. For in such cases defendant's liability endures indefinitely, subject only to the uncontrolled voluntary act of the party who seeks to hold defendant. Under such circumstances it is illusory, from the point of view of defendant, to consider the contract...