Case ID: nys_113/html/0519-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "GIEGERICH, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JONAP v. PREGER et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 16, 1908.)
    Frauds, Statute of (§ 44)—Agreement Not to be Performed in a Year. An oral contract of employment for one year, employment to commence on the day following the making of the contract, is within the statute of frauds.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Frauds, Statute of, Cent. Dig. §§ 66, 92; Dec. Dig. § 44.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.
    Action by David Jonap against Abraham Preger and another, a partnership. Judgment for defendants and plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before GIEGERICH, HENDRICK, and FORD, JJ.
    
      David Friedman (Charles C. Peters, of counsel), for appellant.
    H. Lionel Kringel (Charles G. F. Wahle, of counsel), for respondents.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   GIEGERICH, J.

As the court below said, the testimony offered on behalf of the plaintiff was that the prior contract expired on March 23d, the day the renewal contract was made for another year. This leaves the facts just as they were when the case was here before. 59 Misc. Rep. 187, 110 N. Y. Supp. 483. It is true that an attempt was made to show by the plaintiff that the defendant Jonap said at the time of the renewal that the contract for the additional year was to begin on the day of the conversation, but later he retracted this.

The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs. All concur.