« Appellate Division, Third Department Holds that Workers' Compensation Carrier Cannot Rescind Retroactively | Main | New York Court of Appeals Answers Certified Question on No-Fault Law »

March 29, 2005


Reed Podell

Frankly, I can't see how this holding can be reconciled with the Statute of Frauds. Though the Court referred to one section of the Statute of Frauds that requires the siging of documents related to the sale of real property, the Court wholly ignored another section of the Statute of Frauds. Specifically, General Obligations Law sec. 5-701(a)(2) requires a "special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person", i.e. indemnity agreements, to be in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by his lawful agent. By concluding that an unsigned writting supports an enfoceable contractual indemnity claim, the Court essentially just invalidated GOL sec. 5-701(a)(2).

Bill Altreuter

This one came up at oral argument yesterday, and I knew about it because of this site. Thanks!



I'm really happy to hear that. I hope your argument went well.

I'm still working on an answer to Reed's very astute comment.

The comments to this entry are closed.