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
© 2025 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
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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