Berkowitz v. Mitenthal

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Berkowitz v. Mitenthal

30 Misc. 772, 62 N.Y.S. 484

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 30 Misc. 772 (Berkowitz v. Mitenthal) 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

Berkowitz v. Mitenthal, 30 Misc. 772, 62 N.Y.S. 484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

ManLean, J.

In this action to recover for wages.and commissions, the plaintiff, by summons and his unverified bill of items, claimed a sum certain as his due, and for the full amount judgment was rendered in his favor. He testified that by his contract with the defendants he was to receive commissions only on such goods as went out in response to his orders, and that he could not tell whether all the items included in his bill had been shipped or not. Furthermore, the amount of his sales, the basis of commissions’ computation, was, as appears by his cross-examination, very materially less than the sum claimed in his bill, and for which he recovered. The judgment should be reversed.

Freedman, P. J., concurs; Leventritt, J., concurs in result.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.

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

ManLean, J.

In this action to recover for wages.and commissions, the plaintiff, by summons and his unverified bill of items, claimed a sum certain as his due, and for the full amount judgment was rendered in his favor. He testified that by his contract with the defendants he was to receive commissions only on such goods as went out in response to his orders, and that he could not tell whether all the items included in his bill had been shipped or not. Furthermore, the amount of his sales, the basis of commissions’ computation, was, as appears by his cross-examination, very materially less than the sum claimed in his bill, and for which he recovered. The judgment should be reversed.

Freedman, P. J., concurs; Leventritt, J., concurs in result.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Misc. 772, 62 N.Y.S. 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berkowitz-v-mitenthal-nyappterm-1900.