| Itskovich v Loshak |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 08413 [45 AD3d 535] |
| November 7, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| Ruvin Itskovich, Appellant, v David Loshak et al., Respondents. |
—[*1]
Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Greenberg, Formato & Einiger, LLP, Lake
Success, N.Y. (Keith J. Singer of counsel), for respondent David Loshak.
Denkovich & Burshteyn, P.C., Plainview, N.Y. (Michael R. Denkovich of counsel), for
respondent Simon Greenbaum.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants' separate cross motions which were to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5). Enforcement of the alleged oral agreement between the parties is barred by the statute of frauds because that alleged oral agreement was not capable of being performed within one year (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that, pursuant to the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the defendants should be precluded from invoking the statute of frauds (see Yedvarb v Yedvarb, 237 AD2d 433, 434 [1997]; WE Transp. v Suffolk Transp. Serv., 192 AD2d 601, 602 [1993]; Carvel Corp. v Nicolini, 144 AD2d 611, 612-613 [1988]; D & N Boening v Kirsch Beverages, 99 AD2d 522, 524 [1984], affd 63 NY2d 449 [1984]; cf. American Bartenders School v 105 Madison Co., 59 NY2d 716, 718 [1983]). [*2]
In light of the foregoing, we need not address the defendants' remaining contentions. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Florio and Dillon, JJ., concur.