1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.Y.2d
  4. 81 N.Y.2d
  5. 81 N.Y.2d 470 (1993)
 

APFEL v. PRUDENTIAL-BACHE SEC

81 N.Y.2d 470 (1993)

616 N.E.2d 1095

600 N.Y.S.2d 433

Robert C. Apfel et al., Appellants-Respondents, v. Prudential-Bache Securities Inc., Respondent-Appellant.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Decided July 8, 1993.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Geoffrey S. Stewart, of the District of Columbia Bar, admitted pro hac vice, and Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts, New York City (Philip LeB. Douglas of counsel), for appellants-respondents.

Cahill Gordon & Reindel, New York City (Thomas J. Kavaler, Judith A. Archer and Richard C. Schoenstein of counsel), for respondent-appellant.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur; Judge SMITH taking no part.

SIMONS, J.

Defendant, an investment bank, seeks to avoid an agreement to purchase plaintiffs' idea for issuing and selling municipal bonds. Its principal contention is that plaintiffs had no property right in the idea because it was not novel and, therefore, consideration for the contract was lacking. For reasons which follow, we conclude that a showing of novelty is not required to validate the contract. The...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases