James J. Aquavella v. Ralph S. Viola

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

================================================================= This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------No. 177 SSM 17 James V. Aquavella, &c., et al., Appellants, v. Ralph S. Viola, &c., Respondent. Submitted by Robert B. Calihan, for appellants. Submitted by J. Wood, for respondent. MEMORANDUM: The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. The Appellate Division correctly determined that the proffered writings failed to satisfy - 1 - the statute of frauds - 2 - SSM No. 17 (see General Obligations Law § 5-701[a][1]). The writings, taken together, fail to contain all of the essential terms of the alleged agreement. Specifically, the writings make no mention of the alleged incorporation of the written agreement's noncompete clause into the subsequent oral agreement between the parties. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur. Decided June 7, 2011 - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.