Ashinoff v. Sivin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ashinoff v. Sivin

35 Misc. 802, 72 N.Y.S. 1094

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Misc. 802 (Ashinoff v. Sivin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashinoff v. Sivin, 35 Misc. 802, 72 N.Y.S. 1094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question which was litigated was whether the defendants employed the plaintiff for a definite term of six months or merely took bim for a week on trial. On this question the evidence was conflicting, and we see no reason to disturb the finding of the jury. There was no evidence to justify the submission to the jury of the question whether there had been what defendants call an accord and satisfaction between the parties, by which he apparently means an agreement to abrogate the contract. The plaintiff certainly worked for a week and accepted a check which was expressed as being “ in full payment of all claims up to date.” That had no apparent reference to any future claim either for services or for damages for breach of contract. The evidence of damage was meager, but the plaintiff showed that he made twenty-five dollars during the week that he did work for defendants, and the jury apparently based their verdict upon a much smaller probable profit for the balance of the term.

Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The question which was litigated was whether the defendants employed the plaintiff for a definite term of six months or merely took bim for a week on trial. On this question the evidence was conflicting, and we see no reason to disturb the finding of the jury. There was no evidence to justify the submission to the jury of the question whether there had been what defendants call an accord and satisfaction between the parties, by which he apparently means an agreement to abrogate the contract. The plaintiff certainly worked for a week and accepted a check which was expressed as being “ in full payment of all claims up to date.” That had no apparent reference to any future claim either for services or for damages for breach of contract. The evidence of damage was meager, but the plaintiff showed that he made twenty-five dollars during the week that he did work for defendants, and the jury apparently based their verdict upon a much smaller probable profit for the balance of the term.

Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 802, 72 N.Y.S. 1094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashinoff-v-sivin-nyappterm-1901.