Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Bit Parts

Complaint over Oral Agreement for TV-Network Work Is Dismissed

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a suit against George Steinbrenner that alleged the New York Yankees owner failed to live up to an oral agreement regarding the role of plaintiff Robert M. Gutkowski, former Madison Square Garden president, in the creation and operation of the televised Yankees Entertainment and Sports Network. Gutkowski v. Steinbrenner, 09 Civ. 7535(RJS). Gutkowski had met with Steinbrenner and other New York Yankees executives over several years. But District Judge Richard J. Sullivan found: “First, Plaintiff fails to plead adequately the compensation term of the putative agreement, which precludes Plaintiff from asserting his claim for breach of contract. Second, the purported oral agreement is unenforceable under New York's statute of frauds, which bars Plaintiff's breach of contract and quasi-contract claims. Third, Plaintiff's claim for fraudulent inducement fails to state a cause of action independent from Plaintiff's breach of contract claim. Fourth, all of Plaintiff's claims are untimely pursuant to New York's statute of limitations.” On the breach-of-contract claim, District Judge Sullivan specifically noted “that Plaintiff's allegations that Defendant promised that Plaintiff would be 'compensated fairly' or 'fairly compensated,' in conjunction with the allegation that 'one measure' to calculate this 'fair and reasonable value' is a two to three percent equity interest 'traditionally paid to persons providing the kind of services provided by Plaintiff to Defendant,' are insufficiently definite as a matter of law.” The district also further explained: “An unwritten agreement 'to pay compensation for services rendered ' in negotiating the purchase [of] ' a business opportunity ' or an interest therein' is void under New York's statute of frauds [N.Y. Gen. Oblig. L. '5-701(a)(10)].” 

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Judge Rules Shaquille O'Neal Will Face Securities Lawsuit for Promotion, Sale of NFTs Image

A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.

Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners Image

Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?