Freiman v. D. R. Comenzo & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Freiman v. D. R. Comenzo & Co.

16 A.D.2d 826, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9446

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

DecidedMay 28, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 16 A.D.2d 826 (Freiman v. D. R. Comenzo & Co.) 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

Freiman v. D. R. Comenzo & Co., 16 A.D.2d 826, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a customer’s man against his stockbroker employer based upon an employment agreement, to recover a percentage of commissions earned from plaintiff’s customers, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 23, 1962, which granted plaintiff’s motion under rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to strike out as insufficient in law an affirmative defense that the alleged agreement, which provided for contingent compensation, was illegal and unenforcible because it contravened the rules of the American Stock Exchange. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a customer’s man against his stockbroker employer based upon an employment agreement, to recover a percentage of commissions earned from plaintiff’s customers, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 23, 1962, which granted plaintiff’s motion under rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to strike out as insufficient in law an affirmative defense that the alleged agreement, which provided for contingent compensation, was illegal and unenforcible because it contravened the rules of the American Stock Exchange. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 A.D.2d 826, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freiman-v-d-r-comenzo-co-nyappdiv-1962.