Gibson v. Archer Productions, Inc.
Nicholas E. Gibson v. Archer Productions, Inc.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Per Curiam.
The complaint was dismissed after trial solely on the ground that subdivisions 1 and 10 of section 31 of the Personal Property Law constituted a defense to plaintiff’s cause of action. Though the Statute of Frauds would apply to this suit if it were brought upon an express contract, it would not constitute a defense to an action, such as this, brought in quantum meruit to recover for services rendered. Plaintiff may be entitled to recover, reasonable compensation for services actually rendered by him. (Harmon v. Peats Co., 243 N. Y. 473 ; Elsfelder v. Cournand, 270 App. Div. 162 ; Parver v. Matthews-Kadetsky Co., 242 App. Div. 1 .) Whether plaintiff rendered any services and, if rendered, whether they had any value whatever are matters which must await determination upon a full adducement of the facts. Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn and Callahan, JJ., concur.
Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals2
- Federal District Courts3
- State Highest Courts1
- State Appellate Courts2
- State Trial Courts5
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.