Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Holender v. Fred Cammann Productions, Inc.
Citations: 78 A.D.2d 233; 434 N.Y.S.2d 226; 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13416
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 17, 1980; New York; State Appellate Court
The court opinion addresses a dispute between the plaintiff and defendants regarding a compensation agreement related to a motion picture from November 1977. The plaintiff claims that the defendants agreed to pay him 25% of the 'markup' or gross profits for production services, which was later modified to 12.5%. After the completion of the film, the defendants refused to pay this amount despite the plaintiff's demands. While the defendants acknowledge the existence and modification of the agreement, they argue that payment was contingent upon the producer actually paying the corporate defendant. The defendants assert a Statute of Frauds defense, claiming the agreement is unenforceable except for what was admitted regarding the corporate defendant. They filed for summary judgment, contending that the alleged oral agreement falls under the Statute of Frauds as it pertains to services rendered as a finder or broker, making it unenforceable. The parties had previously entered a stipulation admitting certain facts, including the plaintiff's role as a cinematographer and his introduction of the producer to the corporate defendant, which led to a referral to another entity, EUE, for production services. The stipulation also confirmed the division of the 'markup' as 12% for the plaintiff, with the remainder split between EUE and the corporate defendant. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against the individual defendant, finding no evidence he entered the agreement in his personal capacity. However, the court disagreed with the dismissal of the corporate defendant’s complaint, noting that the primary dispute lies in the timing of the 12% payment, with the plaintiff asserting that payment was guaranteed upon completion of the film, while the defendants argue it is contingent on payments made by EUE. Defendants acknowledged an oral agreement with the plaintiff, which was subsequently modified, and have invoked the Statute of Frauds only regarding aspects of the agreement they did not admit. This indicates a waiver of the Statute of Frauds. The stipulation and the defendants' admissions do not support granting summary judgment to the corporate defendant based on the Statute of Frauds. In New York, an oral contract under this statute is voidable, not absolutely void, affecting only the proof of the agreement. The court noted that the oral agreement was not specifically detailed in the complaint, with details provided in the defendants' answer and the stipulation, making its interpretation crucial. The plaintiff contends that the oral agreement, as modified, was a cofinder agreement not subject to the Statute of Frauds, and the defendants have not denied the existence or modification of the agreement. They only dispute the current obligation to pay the plaintiff. The defendants' counsel's assertion lacks sufficient factual knowledge to conclude that the agreement falls under the Statute of Frauds. The plaintiff's claim that they were entitled to a share of profits lends credibility to his assertion of a cofinder relationship, which would negate the application of the Statute of Frauds. Given that it is plausible the parties entered into a cofinder agreement, and such agreements are not covered by the Statute of Frauds, the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint against the corporate defendant was inappropriate. The court emphasized that summary judgment should be granted only when no triable issues exist. Therefore, the court ordered the modification of a previous judgment to reverse the dismissal of the complaint against Fred Cammann Productions, Inc., denying their summary judgment motion while affirming the judgment as modified, without costs.