Carmen v. Shore Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carmen v. Shore Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.

270 A.D. 945, 62 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4813

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

DecidedMay 20, 1946

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 270 A.D. 945 (Carmen v. Shore Cleaners & Dyers, Inc.) 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

Carmen v. Shore Cleaners & Dyers, Inc., 270 A.D. 945, 62 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover upon a contract of employment, plaintiff appeals from a judgment, entered upon the dismissal of his complaint at the close of his evidence. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs to appellant, and a new trial granted. The evidence excluded was not incompetent under section 347 of the Civil Practice Act. Plaintiff’s complaint does not affect any property which was derived from or through the deceased person with whom plaintiff’s original contract is alleged to have been made, but affects only the profits of the defendant’s business which, concededly, never belonged to the decedent, except insofar as they may have been paid to him by the defendant. Evidence of the contract which plaintiff alleges was made with the decedent was essential to establish the terms of the agreement alleged to have been made between plaintiff and defendant, by an adoption of such terms, but such evidence would not have affected, in any way, any property which defendant derived from or through said decedent. (Cf. Titus v. O’Connor, 18 Hun 373.) The complaint sufficiently pleads a contract between plaintiff and defendant. Section 347 does not bar evidence of conversations with an agent of a corporation, even though [946]*946such agent be dead at the time o£ trial. (Mellcon v. Kirk & Go., 220 App. Div. 180.) Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Aldrich and Nolan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover upon a contract of employment, plaintiff appeals from a judgment, entered upon the dismissal of his complaint at the close of his evidence. Judgment reversed on the law, with costs to appellant, and a new trial granted. The evidence excluded was not incompetent under section 347 of the Civil Practice Act. Plaintiff’s complaint does not affect any property which was derived from or through the deceased person with whom plaintiff’s original contract is alleged to have been made, but affects only the profits of the defendant’s business which, concededly, never belonged to the decedent, except insofar as they may have been paid to him by the defendant. Evidence of the contract which plaintiff alleges was made with the decedent was essential to establish the terms of the agreement alleged to have been made between plaintiff and defendant, by an adoption of such terms, but such evidence would not have affected, in any way, any property which defendant derived from or through said decedent. (Cf. Titus v. O’Connor, 18 Hun 373.) The complaint sufficiently pleads a contract between plaintiff and defendant. Section 347 does not bar evidence of conversations with an agent of a corporation, even though [946]*946such agent be dead at the time o£ trial. (Mellcon v. Kirk & Go., 220 App. Div. 180.) Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Aldrich and Nolan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D. 945, 62 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1946 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carmen-v-shore-cleaners-dyers-inc-nyappdiv-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack