Facts
- Arthur H. Rogoff claimed San Juan Racing Association, Inc. owed him payments under an alleged contract.
- Rogoff sued for breach of contract.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the alleged agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because there was no sufficient written memorandum.
- The Statute of Frauds was not expressly pleaded as an affirmative defense in the answer, but defendants relied on it as the principal basis for summary judgment.
- Rogoff opposed the motion, arguing the defense was unavailable due to nonpleading and was premature due to incomplete disclosure, and also arguing that multiple documents collectively satisfied the Statute of Frauds.
Issues
- Whether defendants could obtain summary judgment based on the Statute of Frauds even though the defense was not expressly pleaded in the answer.
- Whether the record contained a writing, or series of writings read together, sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds for the alleged contract.
Decision
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order granting summary judgment to defendants, with costs.
- It held it was not legal error to permit reliance on the Statute of Frauds at summary judgment despite nonpleading where the defense was clearly advanced and fully litigated in motion practice.
- It held the record contained no writing or set of writings that could even arguably satisfy the Statute of Frauds.
- It rejected Rogoff’s remaining arguments as without merit.
Legal Principles
- An affirmative defense may be considered on summary judgment even if not expressly pleaded when the defense is plainly raised as a central ground for the motion and the opposing party has a full opportunity to contest it.
- To satisfy the Statute of Frauds, the record must contain a sufficient written memorandum (or connected writings) that, read together, meets statutory requirements; multiple documents do not suffice if they fail to supply the required contractual terms.
Conclusion
The court upheld summary judgment because defendants could rely on the Statute of Frauds at the summary judgment stage notwithstanding nonpleading, and because the documents in the record, whether viewed individually or collectively, failed to satisfy the Statute of Frauds, rendering the alleged contract unenforceable.