Sometimes the Statute of Frauds Can Be a Real Pain in the Neck

Just ask Professor Chander Kant.  He filed a pro se complaint alleging that ColumbiaUniversity breached an oral contract promising him a senior-level, full-time,tenure-track faculty position in its Economics Department.  But the S.D.N.Y. (Gardephe, J.) dismissedthe complaint: 

Kant alleges that an oral contractwas formed when he was promised a senior-level, full-time appointment for twosuccessive one-year terms, subject to (1) approval of the initial appointmentby the economics department’s senior faculty, and (2) Kant’s regular attendanceat and participation in weekly research seminars. (SAC ¶¶14, 17)Kant asserts that reappointment after the first year was mandatory if hisinitial appointment was approved and he met his seminar obligations. (See SAC¶14 (“During [the initial year of appointment] two things will happen:Kant will be considered for tenure, and he will be reappointed for a secondyear.”))

The alleged oral contract—althoughphrased in one-year increments—provides for performance over a two-year period,and thus violates the statute of frauds, rendering it unenforceable. See Bykofsky v.Hess, 107 A.D.2d 779, 782 (2d Dep’t 1985) (holding an oral promise”to reappoint plaintiff for two successive one-year terms unenforceablepursuant to the Statute of Frauds”) (collecting cases); Ginsberg v.Fairfield-Noble Corp., 81 A.D.2d 318 (1st Dep’t 1981) (“oralemployment agreement for a period of one year to commence at a time subsequentto the making of the agreement is unenforceable against a plea of the Statuteof Frauds”); Whitehall v.Maimonides School, 53 A.D.2d 568 (1st Dep’t 1976) (finding oralemployment agreement unenforceable under the statute of frauds where thecontract “was made on July 6, 1973, with performance to commence on August1, 1973 and [to] be completed on July 31, 1974”); see also Andruff v.World Travel Holdings, PLC, No. 01 Civ. 10717 (LBS), 2002 WL 1033811(S.D.N.Y. May 22, 2002) (granting summary judgment for defendant becauseunwritten two-year contract violated Statute of Frauds).

While Kant alleges that his oralcontract was “renewed and restated” by Professor Davis in January 2002(SAC ¶18), this confirmation of the original terms of the allegedJanuary 2001 oral agreement by a second Columbia official in January 2002 doesnot alter the fact that the January 2001 agreement provided for performanceover two years.

Kant v. Columbia University, 08 Civ. 7476 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9,2010).

[Meredith R. Miller]