Getting Past the Salacious Hype in the Stormy Daniels case
Setting aside a contract is no easy matter and while Stormy Daniels and her attorney are getting a lot of press, the bottom line is whether the contract is enforceable.
April 19, 2018 at 12:16 PM
3 minute read
Let's go past the salacious hype in the Stormy Daniels case and cut to the chase as a matter of law. There is a contract wherein the president was an unsigned third-party beneficiary. There was money paid that would satisfy the elements of a contract also known as consideration. There were promises made that in return for the money Daniels would keep her mouth shut about an alleged sexual encounter with President Donald Trump in 2006 while he was married. A breach of contract action in New York must be brought within six years of the alleged breach. But setting aside a contract is no easy matter and while Daniels and her attorney are getting a lot of press, the bottom line is whether the contract is enforceable.
It is the law in most states that prostitution and adultery are crimes. Agreements that provide for the enforcement of a contract of confidentiality concealing the commission of crimes may also be unenforceable and Trump may also be entitled to invoke the Fifth Amendment and his lawyer's papers may also be privileged, thus vitiating the search warrants. Robert Mueller's warrants must show that there was probable cause to believe that Trump and his lawyers committed crimes with respect to the Russian probe not anything pertaining to Daniels unless there is a connection, which seems unlikely.
These are all matters of contract law that the courts will capably resolve but it brings home a legal issue that we sometimes see in our Village Court in Building Code cases where illegal occupancies are alleged. A homeowner of a single-family dwelling will come forward and allege that when they bought the home it was being used as a two-family dwelling. Real property in New York is sold in “as is” condition except for whatever warranties are made in a written contract referred to as the statute of frauds. Without a certificate of occupancy showing the legality of a two-family home, the owner is out of luck. His or her only recourse may be to apply for a variance before the Board of Zoning Appeals. But unless approved for a change in use, this will not be considered as a defense to a Building Code violation.
Contract law, as the 1970s movie “The Paper Chase” showed, is at times confusing but there is one principle that applies which I attribute to the late comedian, Flip Wilson: “What you see is what you get.” In order to avoid buying a “pig in a poke,” get your deal in writing, make sure that you have a legal bargain and never rely on parol or oral evidence to support your claim of the existence of a contract or its terms. While you may not be from that fine state of Missouri your claim should always be: “show me.”
Thomas Liotti is the Westbury Village Court justice.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRepealing Fault Grounds for Divorce Would Have Little Effect on NY Matrimonial Law
11 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250