Opinion
October 9, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.).
Plaintiff alleges that appellants fraudulently induced him and his purported coventurer to locate and procure particular works of art by representing that they had a client who would pay $300,000 for the works as an assembled set; in fact, according to plaintiff, appellants had no direct contact with the prospective purchaser and no authority to act on his or her behalf. Assuming the truth of these allegations and giving them every favorable intendment ( 219 Broadway Corp. v. Alexander's, Inc., 46 N.Y.2d 506, 509), they show that a contract was entered into between brokers for the location and procurement of specific items of property for sale to a specific buyer. Such an agreement is neither one to procure or negotiate a business opportunity (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [10]; compare, Mirisola v. Habsburg Feldman, S.A., 172 A.D.2d 306; see, Freedman v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 43 N.Y.2d 260, 266-267), nor one for the sale of goods (UCC 2-201; compare, American-European Art Assocs. v. Trend Galleries, 227 A.D.2d 170), and is not subject to the Statute of Frauds ( see, Dura v. Walker, Hart Co., 27 N.Y.2d 346). We note that even were this transaction subject to the Statute of Frauds, the partial performance of the agreement would remove the matter from the proscription.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Nardelli, JJ.