Meltzer v. Koenigsberg
Cases that cite this one
114 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- United States v. Real Property & Premises Located at 249-20 Cambria Avenue (District Court, E.D. New York 2014)
- Uniformed Firefighters Ass'n v. Beekman (N.Y. 1981)
- O'KEEFFE v. Bry (District Court, S.D. New York 1978)
- Flushing National Bank v. Municipal Assistance Corp. (N.Y. 1976)
- American Airlines, Inc. v. Remis Industries, Inc. (2d Cir. 1974)
- Schwartz v. Romnes (2d Cir. 1974)
- Schwartz v. H. I. Romnes (2d Cir. 1974)
- Blanche E. Rubenstein v. Archie L. Kleven (1st Cir. 1958)
- Rubenstein v. Kleven (District Court, D. Massachusetts 1958)
- Katzman v. Ætna Life Insurance (N.Y. 1955)
- Cooper v. Cooper (District Court, E.D. New York 2022)
- Gonick v. Adirondack Research & Mgt., Inc. (New York Supreme Court 2017)
- The People v. John Andujar (N.Y. 2017)
- DeThomasis v. Viviano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- DeThomasis v. Viviano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- People v. Brown (Criminal Court of the City of New York 2015)
- People v. Cintron (Criminal Court of the City of New York 2015)
- DOORLEY, SANDRA J. v. DEMARCO, HON. JOHN L. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Doorley v. DeMarco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Doorley v. DeMarco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Dong Sic Ko v. City of New York Department of Finance Parking Violations Bureau (New York Supreme Court 2010)
- People v. Dan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- Van Nostrand v. Froehlich (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- People v. Cagle (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The Statute of Frauds requires that an agreement be in writing if by its terms performance is “ not to be completed before the end of a lifetime ” (Personal Property Law, § 31, subd. 1). Had the Legislature intended the “ lifetime ” referred to to be the lifetime of the promisor, the party to be charged, or the lifetime of any particular person, it could easily and readily have so provided. (See 4 Ariz. Code Ann. [Official ed.], § 58-101, subd. 8; Cal. Code Civ. Pro., § 1973, subd. 6.) The language found in the statute is clear and unambiguous, and, as this court long ago declared, and frequently repeated, in the construction of statutes, the intent of the framers “ is to be sought first of all, in the words and language employed, and if the words are free from ambiguity and doubt, and express plainly, clearly and distinctly, the sense of the framers of the instrument, there is no occasion to resort to other means of interpretation. It is not allowable to interpret what has no need of interpretation, and when the words have a definite and precise meaning, to go elsewhere in search of conjecture in order to restrict or extend the meaning. * * * Courts cannot correct supposed errors, omissions or defects in legislation * * * . The office of interpretation is to bring sense out of the words used, and not bring a sense into them.” (McCluskey v. Cromwell, 11 N. Y. 593, 601-602; see, also, Matter of Rathscheck, 300 N. Y. 346, 350.)
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
Loughbax, Ch. J., Lewis, Coxway, Desmoxd, Dye, Fuld and Fboessel, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.