First Choice Staffing of N.Y., Inc. v Geller & Siegel, L.L.P.

[*1] First Choice Staffing of N.Y., Inc. v Geller & Siegel, L.L.P. 2009 NY Slip Op 51637(U) [24 Misc 3d 140(A)] Decided on July 29, 2009 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 29, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Schoenfeld, Heitler, JJ
570597/08.

First Choice Staffing of New York, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant,

against

Geller & Siegel, L.L.P., Defendant-Respondent.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), dated April 9, 2008, which granted plaintiff's motion to the extent of awarding it partial summary judgment in the principal sum of $7,811.64.

Per Curiam.

Order (Manuel J. Mendez, J.), dated April 9, 2008, modified to grant plaintiff summary judgment in the principal sum of $23,561.64; as modified, order affirmed, with $10 costs to plaintiff-appellant.

Plaintiff, an employment agency, having referred to defendant several candidates who were ultimately hired, established a prima facie case of entitlement to judgment, by submitting, inter alia, the affidavit of its president describing the terms of the parties' oral agreement, several invoices, to which defendant failed to object within a reasonable period of time, and proof that defendant made partial payment on one of the three invoices (see Fashion Careers Recruiting Corp. v Alex Apparel Group, 180 Misc 2d 95 [1999]). In opposition, defendant failed to raise a triable issue. The affirmation of a partner of the defendant law firm, even if properly considered (cf. Samuel & Weininger v Belovin & Franzblau, 5 AD3d 466 [2004]; Seven Acre Wood St. Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 302 AD2d 511 [2003]), was too vague and conclusory to defeat summary judgment.

Nor is there merit to defendant's unpleaded Statute of Frauds defense since "an oral agreement between an [employment] agency and an employer is enforceable and not subject to the Statute of Frauds" (Arrow Empl. Agency v Tom Rice Buick-Pontiac-GMC Truck, 185 Misc 2d 811, 812-813 [2000]; see also Howard-Sloan Legal Search v Todtman, Young, Tunick, Nachamie, Hendler & Spizz, P.C., 193 AD2d 404 [1993]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. [*2]
Decision Date: July 29, 2009