On June 18, 2025, the Second Department issued a decision in Bardy v. Bonnem, 2025 NY Slip Op. 03698, holding that the statute of frauds barred a claim based on an oral agreement not capable of performance in one year, but allowing quasi-contract claims to survive, explaining:
Pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-701(a)(1), an agreement is void if it is not memorialized in writing if, by its terms it is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof. Where there is absolutely no possibility in fact and law of full performance by both parties within one year, the Statute of Frauds bars enforcement of an oral contract. In order to satisfy the statute of frauds, a memorandum, subscribed by the party to be charged, must designate the parties, identify and describe the subject matter, and state all the essential terms of a complete agreement. A writing is not a sufficient memorandum unless the full intention of the parties can be ascertained from it alone, without recourse to parol evidence.
Here, the November 13, 2016 email failed to set forth the full scope of the alleged agreement between the plaintiff and Bonnem and, as such, failed to satisfy the statute of frauds. While the plaintiff alleges that he provided services to Ready Coffee in order to leave open the option to purchase, the terms of the contract as alleged by the plaintiff can only be completed after three years. Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the exception to the statute of frauds for part performance has not been extended to General Obligations Law § 5-701, and so any evidence tending to show partial performance would not obviate the requirement of a written agreement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the cause of action alleging breach of contract.
However, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the defendants’ motion which were to dismiss the causes of action alleging unjust enrichment and to recover in quantum meruit. Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the plaintiff did not plead those causes of action in order to circumvent the statute of frauds by seeking enforcement of an otherwise unenforceable contract, but properly pled those causes of action in the alternative to his breach of contract cause of action. A quasi contract is created by operation of law in the absence of an agreement between the parties to avoid injustice. The essential inquiry in any action for unjust enrichment is whether it is against equity and good conscience to permit the defendant to retain what is sought to be recovered. To establish a quantum meruit claim, the plaintiff must show: (1) the performance of services in good faith, (2) the acceptance of services by the person or persons to whom they are rendered, (3) the expectation of compensation therefor, and (4) the reasonable value of the services rendered. Here, the amended complaint properly alleged all of essential elements of those causes of action, and they are not merely duplicative of the plaintiff’s breach of contract cause of action.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).