Schaffer v HSC Mgt. Corp.

[*1] Schaffer v HSC Mgt. Corp. 2005 NYSlipOp 51159(U) Decided on July 21, 2005 Appellate Term, Second 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 21, 2005
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE TERM: 9th and 10th JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
PRESENT: RUDOLPH, P.J., ANGIOLILLO and TANENBAUM, JJ.
2004-1174 W C

Benjamin Schaffer, Respondent,

against

HSC Management Corp., Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, Westchester County (M. Martinelli, J.), entered January 5, 2004, in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $8,000.

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs.

Plaintiff commenced the instant action to recover the sum of $8,000 for unpaid architectural services. After trial, the court found in favor of plaintiff and awarded him a judgment in the principal sum of $8,000.

Defendant's argument that no contract existed is without merit. The court below found that an express contract existed between the parties and the evidence adduced at trial supports this finding. Based on the testimony, it is clear that plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement and, pursuant to that agreement, plaintiff was to provide defendant with architectural services for planned renovations to a building owned by defendant. The parties agreed that the initial work, for which plaintiff seeks to recover in this action, would cost $10,000. It is uncontroverted that defendant paid the sum of $2,000 and made no further payments. While defendant argues that it never accepted the services rendered by plaintiff, Howard Cohen, defendant's agent, testified that even though he was unhappy with plaintiff's first set of drawings of proposed renovations, he did not terminate plaintiff's services until after plaintiff had prepared more drawings and gathered estimates from various contractors for the cost of construction. Therefore, the lower court properly found that defendant had rendered the services called for under the agreement.

Furthermore, inasmuch as the contract, by its terms, did not require performance beyond one year of its making, the contract is enforceable and plaintiff's cause of action
for breach of contract is not barred by the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]; Sheehy v Clifford Chance Rogers & Wells LLP, 3 NY3d 554 [2004]).
Decision Date: July 21, 2005