Federated Graphics Companies, Inc. v. Century Graphics Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Federated Graphics Companies, Inc. v. Century Graphics Corp.

29 A.D.2d 641, 288 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4750

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 641 (Federated Graphics Companies, Inc. v. Century Graphics 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

Federated Graphics Companies, Inc. v. Century Graphics Corp., 29 A.D.2d 641, 288 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered May 31, 1967, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion to amend its answer to allege a counterclaim, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted and an assessment of damages directed, and defendant’s cross motion denied. In this action to recover commissions, the record establishes that plaintiff procured for defendant a printing contract with Brown and Gravenson, Inc., on terms set forth in the letter dated September 7, 1965. The contract was approved and ratified by defendant’s president by letter dated September 20, 1965, which sets forth the prices precisely as they appear in the letter of September 7, 1965. In addition, the September 20 letter states the rates of commission payable to plaintiff. Defendant fulfilled the contract and has been paid by Brown and Gravenson, Inc. The contention that the contract does not represent the agreement that plaintiff was authorized to make lacks sufficient factual support to raise an issue. Concur— Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Tilzer, MeGivern and McNally, JJ.

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

Order, entered May 31, 1967, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s cross motion to amend its answer to allege a counterclaim, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff-appellant, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted and an assessment of damages directed, and defendant’s cross motion denied. In this action to recover commissions, the record establishes that plaintiff procured for defendant a printing contract with Brown and Gravenson, Inc., on terms set forth in the letter dated September 7, 1965. The contract was approved and ratified by defendant’s president by letter dated September 20, 1965, which sets forth the prices precisely as they appear in the letter of September 7, 1965. In addition, the September 20 letter states the rates of commission payable to plaintiff. Defendant fulfilled the contract and has been paid by Brown and Gravenson, Inc. The contention that the contract does not represent the agreement that plaintiff was authorized to make lacks sufficient factual support to raise an issue. Concur— Stevens, J. P., Steuer, Tilzer, MeGivern and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 641, 288 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federated-graphics-companies-inc-v-century-graphics-corp-nyappdiv-1968.