This case arises in the supreme court of New York county. Plaintiff Silver sues for breach of contract. [ Don't be fooled by the name of New York state's court of origination.In every other state, the supreme court is the highest appellate court, but in NY it is the court where cases enter the legal system. Why? Who knows.]

Parties are ex-partners. Plaintiff promised to move out in exchange for payments from defendant. Plaintiff moved out and defendant paid for a time. Defendant ceased payment and plaintiff brought suit for breach of contract.

What constitutes a bargained for exchange? Is a minimal yeilding enough of a detriment to be considered a valid consideration?

A minimal yeilding by one party that promotes an agreement is enough detriment to be considered a valid consideration.

Consideration requires two things: a detriment to the promisee, and that detriment must be bargained for by the promisor with the promisor's promise. Here, the judge finds that the plaintiff lover's moving out and releasing all her claims, regardless of their validity, is a detriment bargained for by the doctor. This detriment is a minimum yeilding that prompted the defendant doctor's promise.

Why is there so much crap about same sex marriages in this opinion? Does the judge want to show that the decision is not based on controversial findings of same-sex palimony agreements?