Snyder v. Bronfman

In Snyder v. Bronfman (13 NY3d 504, 506, 921 N.E.2d 567, 893 N.Y.S.2d 800 (2009)), the Court of Appcals makes clear that GOL 5-701(a)(10) also bars "quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims brought to recover the value of plaintiff's services in helping to achieve a corporate acquisition." In Snyder, the plaintiff alleged an oral joint venture agreement with the defendant, unlike plaintiff herein. However, as the plaintiff failed to appeal the Supreme Court's holding that the alleged oral joint venture agreement was "unenforceable for indefiniteness," the Court of Appeals declined to address the issue of whether the agreement would have been barred by GOL 5-701(a)(10) (id at 507-508, 509). The Court explained: "Whether this unenforceable contract, if it had been otherwise enforceable, would have been barred by the statute of frauds is an academic question, and perhaps an unanswerable one; In any event, there is no reason to answer it here" (Snyder at 509). In affirming the First Department's dismissal of the plaintiff's quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims, the Court of Appeals explained: The question is simply whether plaintiff is now seeking compensation for services rendered in finding and negotiating a business opportunity. He is. . . . Dura has no application here. In Freedman, supra at 267 we remarked . . . that the plaintiffs role in a transaction was 'limited and transitory;' but that does not mean that every broker or finder who plays more than a 'limited and transitory' role in a transaction is entitled to recover. The more relevant language in Freedman says that "where . . . the intermediary's activity is . . . that of providing 'know-how' or 'know-who,' in bringing about between principals an enterprise of some complexity or an acquisition of a significant interest in an enterprise," the statute of frauds applies (id.). That describes what plaintiff did here. (Id. at 509)