Carlson Construction Co. v. Thermasol, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carlson Construction Co. v. Thermasol, Ltd.

24 A.D.2d 565, 262 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3688

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 6, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 565 (Carlson Construction Co. v. Thermasol, Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carlson Construction Co. v. Thermasol, Ltd., 24 A.D.2d 565, 262 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover commissions allegedly due under an exclusive franchise agreement, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered March 31, 1964 after trial, upon the verdict of a jury in plaintiff’s favor. Judgment affirmed, with costs. In our opinion, the agreement was not void for lack of mutuality (cf. Steinhilber v. Challenger Steel Prods. Corp., 9 A D 2d 695). It is also our opinion that the issue as to the meaning of the contract was properly submitted to the jury (cf. Anchin, Block & Anchin v. Pennsylvania Coal & Coke Corp., 284 App. Div. 940, affd. 308 N. Y. 985) and that the verdict in plaintiff’s favor was supported by sufficient evidence. The court’s charge, in our opinion, was not inadequate, (cf. Smith v. Gray, 19 App. Div. 262, 263, affd. 162 N. Y. 643); in any event there were no exceptions thereto and reversal is not required in the interests of justice. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover commissions allegedly due under an exclusive franchise agreement, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered March 31, 1964 after trial, upon the verdict of a jury in plaintiff’s favor. Judgment affirmed, with costs. In our opinion, the agreement was not void for lack of mutuality (cf. Steinhilber v. Challenger Steel Prods. Corp., 9 A D 2d 695). It is also our opinion that the issue as to the meaning of the contract was properly submitted to the jury (cf. Anchin, Block & Anchin v. Pennsylvania Coal & Coke Corp., 284 App. Div. 940, affd. 308 N. Y. 985) and that the verdict in plaintiff’s favor was supported by sufficient evidence. The court’s charge, in our opinion, was not inadequate, (cf. Smith v. Gray, 19 App. Div. 262, 263, affd. 162 N. Y. 643); in any event there were no exceptions thereto and reversal is not required in the interests of justice. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 565, 262 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlson-construction-co-v-thermasol-ltd-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack