Di Prosa v. Post Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Di Prosa v. Post Corp.

99 A.D.2d 653, 472 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16904

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 A.D.2d 653 (Di Prosa v. Post Corp.) 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

Di Prosa v. Post Corp., 99 A.D.2d 653, 472 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs, and motion to amend record to include cross appeal granted. Memorandum: We affirm the order setting aside the verdict on the second cause of action for reasons stated at Trial Term. With respect to the first cause of action pertaining to the claim for severance pay, defendants have failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of lack of consideration for the promise to pay. The sole factual issue submitted to the jury in the court’s charge and in the special questions was whether defendants made an outright promise to pay plaintiff’s salary for 26 weeks or whether they said that the payments would stop if plaintiff got another job within that period. There was no exception to the charge, and the record shows that defendants made no objection during the trial or on the posttrial motions to the legal theory on which the case was submitted. (Appeals from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Smith, J. — employment contract.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Moule, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs, and motion to amend record to include cross appeal granted. Memorandum: We affirm the order setting aside the verdict on the second cause of action for reasons stated at Trial Term. With respect to the first cause of action pertaining to the claim for severance pay, defendants have failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of lack of consideration for the promise to pay. The sole factual issue submitted to the jury in the court’s charge and in the special questions was whether defendants made an outright promise to pay plaintiff’s salary for 26 weeks or whether they said that the payments would stop if plaintiff got another job within that period. There was no exception to the charge, and the record shows that defendants made no objection during the trial or on the posttrial motions to the legal theory on which the case was submitted. (Appeals from judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Smith, J. — employment contract.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Doerr, Green, O’Donnell and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 653, 472 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-prosa-v-post-corp-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack