Majority
—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.), entered March 18, 1994, which granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Although timely brought, plaintiff’s cause of action for breach of an alleged oral contract involving an exchange of her services for a share of defendant’s corporate stock is barred by the Statute of Frauds contained in UCC 8-319 (see, Dillon v Peretti, 176 AD2d 497 , 498; Goldfinger v Brown, 169 AD2d 702 , 703). That plaintiff worked 20 years for defendants without any salary and without even asking what her share of the corporate stock would be or when she would receive it is not unequivocally referable to the alleged oral contract (see, Anostario v Vicinanzo, 59 NY2d 662 , 664). Nor do her allegations that she resigned her position with another company in order to work for defendants support a claim of promissory estoppel (see, Cunnison v Richardson Greenshields Sec., 107 AD2d 50 , 52-54). In any event, even assuming the Statute of Frauds did
Cases cited
- Dillon v. Peretti 176 AD2d 497 at 498 p. 252
- Anostario v. Vicinanzo 59 NY2d 662 at 664 p. 252
- Cunnison v. Richardson Greenshields Securities, Inc. 107 AD2d 50 at 52-54 p. 252
- Joseph Martin, Jr., Delicatessen, Inc. v. Schumacher 52 NY2d 105 at 109 p. 253
- Murphy v. American Home Products Corp. 58 NY2d 293 at 300-301 p. 253
- Mariani v. Dyer 193 AD2d 456 p. 253
- Brown v. Lockwood 76 AD2d 721 at 731-732 p. 253