Opinion
12047 Index No. 651436/16 Case No. 2019-4304
10-13-2020
Tina S. WEISENFELD, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Sameh S. ISKANDER, et al., Defendants–Respondents, John Does 1–25, Defendants.
Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, New York (Robert S. Smith of counsel), for appellant. Loeb & Loeb LLP, New York (Sarah Schacter of counsel), for respondents.
Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP, New York (Robert S. Smith of counsel), for appellant.
Loeb & Loeb LLP, New York (Sarah Schacter of counsel), for respondents.
Gische, J.P., Singh, Kennedy, Mendez, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood), entered April 26, 2019, which, inter alia, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
At issue are the terms of the handwritten notes taken at the initial meeting, plaintiff claiming that one of the provisions therein, under the heading "Mgmt" and stating "20% of G P inc to me," entitled Stark, and later his assignees, to 20% of the proceeds of the sale of the buildings to which the general partner would be entitled. The handwritten notes at issue are too indefinite to enforce as sought by plaintiff (see e.g. Glanzer v. Keilin & Bloom, 281 A.D.2d 371, 372, 722 N.Y.S.2d 540 [1st Dept. 2001] ).
The alleged agreement also fails for a lack of consideration (see ACE Fire Underwriters Ins. Co. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 84 A.D.3d 688, 689, 924 N.Y.S.2d 342 [1st Dept. 2011] ). Plaintiff's claim that her father told her that he would help locate other investors as part of the agreement is inadmissible hearsay, and she offers no other admissible evidence to support her assertions (see Candela v. City of New York, 8 A.D.3d 45, 47, 778 N.Y.S.2d 31 [1st Dept. 2004] ). Plaintiff further failed to demonstrate that Iskander and Bishay were aware that Kenneth Stark was not acting as their attorney, but on his own behalf in the transaction (see Greene v. Greene, 56 N.Y.2d 86, 92, 451 N.Y.S.2d 46, 436 N.E.2d 496 [1982] ).
Plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim is duplicative and flawed since there was no clear and unambiguous statement, nor any detrimental reliance by Mr. Stark or plaintiff (see Benham v. eCommission Solutions LLC, 118 A.D.3d 605, 607, 989 N.Y.S.2d 20 [1st Dept. 2014] ), and the unjust enrichment claim fails for lack of credible evidence.