A defendant is not confined to denials of the allegations of the complaint or petition, but is entitled to set out new matter in defense or as a basis for affirmative relief. Oral contracts can be just as valid and enforceable as written contracts.
The Second Defense of this form gives an example of pleading such a defense and is a generic example of an answer and affirmative defense that may be referred to when preparing such a pleading for your particular state.
A civil lawsuit is an intricate legal process that requires the defendant to respond appropriately to the allegations brought against them. In cases where the plaintiff claims that the cause of action is barred by the appropriate Statute of Frauds, a defendant in New York must adhere to the specific requirements imposed by the state. This article aims to provide a detailed description of what a New York Answer by Defendant entails in the context of an affirmative defense based on the Statute of Frauds. The Statute of Frauds is a legal principle that exists in many jurisdictions, including New York, to prevent certain types of contracts from being enforced unless they meet specific criteria. It serves as a safeguard against fraud and ensures that agreements with significant consequences are properly memorialized in writing. In New York, the Statute of Frauds is embodied in the General Obligations Law, Section 5-701, which outlines the specific categories of contracts that require written evidence to be enforceable. When a defendant is faced with a civil lawsuit where the plaintiff's cause of action might be barred by the Statute of Frauds, their Answer forms an essential part of their defense. There are typically two types of New York Answers by Defendants in this context: general denials and affirmative defenses. 1. General Denials: In a New York Answer, the defendant may choose to deny the plaintiff's allegations in a general manner. They can assert that they lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the plaintiff's allegations, thereby requiring the plaintiff to prove their case. This approach helps ensure that the plaintiff meets their burden of proof, especially when the Statute of Frauds is involved. 2. Affirmative Defense Based on the Statute of Frauds: Alternatively, the defendant can assert an affirmative defense based on the Statute of Frauds. With this defense, the defendant argues that the applicable statute renders the plaintiff's cause of action unenforceable due to the absence of a written agreement satisfying the statutory requirements. They may argue that the alleged contract falls into one of the categories specified in the General Obligations Law, Section 5-701, such as contracts for the sale of real property, agreements not to be performed within one year, or promises to pay the debt of another. To assert this affirmative defense effectively, the defendant's Answer should set forth the ground(s) relied upon, providing a detailed explanation of how the particular contract alleged by the plaintiff violates the Statute of Frauds. The defendant must demonstrate that no written agreement exists or that any present writing fails to satisfy the criteria mandated by the statute. Supporting evidence, such as correspondence, emails, or other written communications, can be submitted to bolster the defense. In conclusion, a New York Answer by Defendant in a civil lawsuit alleging the affirmative defense of the cause of action being barred by the appropriate Statute of Frauds requires careful attention. Whether through general denials or an affirmative defense, the defendant should put forth a clear and well-supported argument explaining how the requirements of the Statute of Frauds have not been met. By doing so, the defendant aims to challenge the plaintiff's claims and ensure that the court fully considers the applicability of the Statute of Frauds in the case.
