54 N.Y.2d 883 (1981)

A party can raise a Statute of Frauds defense in a motion for summary judgment even if it wasn’t explicitly pleaded in the answer, provided the opposing party has notice of and an opportunity to respond to the defense.

Summary

Arthur Rogoff sued San Juan Racing Association for breach of contract. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the alleged contract was barred by the Statute of Frauds, despite not raising the defense in its answer. Rogoff opposed, arguing the defense was waived and that sufficient writings existed to satisfy the statute. The New York Court of Appeals held that because Rogoff had notice and an opportunity to respond to the Statute of Frauds defense in the motion for summary judgment, the defendant’s failure to plead it in the answer was not fatal. The court also found insufficient written evidence to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment for the defendant.

Facts

Arthur Rogoff brought a lawsuit against San Juan Racing Association, alleging breach of contract. The specific details of the alleged contract are not fully detailed in the opinion, but it appears to involve some type of agreement not performable within one year, thus potentially falling under the Statute of Frauds. The defendant, San Juan Racing Association, moved for summary judgment.

Procedural History

The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the contract was barred by the Statute of Frauds. The plaintiff opposed, contending the Statute of Frauds defense was waived because it wasn’t pleaded in the answer and arguing that sufficient written documents existed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision granting summary judgment to the defendant. The plaintiff then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether a defendant can raise a Statute of Frauds defense in a motion for summary judgment if the defense was not explicitly pleaded in the answer.

2. Whether the writings presented by the plaintiff were sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.

Holding

1. No, because the plaintiff had notice and opportunity to respond to the defense.

2. No, because there was no single writing or series of writings that satisfied the statutory requirement.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals addressed the procedural issue first, stating that the plaintiff fully opposed the Statute of Frauds argument in the motion for summary judgment, both on procedural grounds (failure to plead) and on the merits. The court reasoned that because the plaintiff had notice and an opportunity to respond, it was not reversible error for the Appellate Division to consider the unpleaded defense. The court emphasized the plaintiff’s arguments included “14 written documents which collectively met the requirements of the statute,” that there had been full performance, and that the contract was not subject to the statute. Thus, the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the lack of formal pleading.

On the merits, the court agreed with the Appellate Division that there was nothing “in the record any writing or series of writings construed as a whole, which could even arguably satisfy [the] statutory requirement.” Therefore, the court found that the Statute of Frauds barred the plaintiff’s claim. The court summarily dismissed the appellant’s remaining arguments as without merit.