Friedman v. Roseth Corp.

270 A.D. 988, 62 N.Y.S.2d 663
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 14, 1946
StatusPublished
Cited by36 cases

This text of 270 A.D. 988 (Friedman v. Roseth 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
Friedman v. Roseth Corp., 270 A.D. 988, 62 N.Y.S.2d 663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1946).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The first cause of action against, three corporate and three individual defendants charges all the defendants with breach of alleged employment contracts between plaintiff and all the defendants. The second cause of action against 'the same defendants repeats and realleges the allegations of the first cause of action with the additional allegation that the breach was maliciously committed in furtherance of a conspiracy.

The complaint is involved and. difficult to analyze, but as plaintiff may be able to prove a cause of action thereunder, the first cause of action should be permitted to stand trial. In so ruling, we are not passing upon the construction of the agreements set forth or determining their purport or effect, but are leaving to a trial on all the evidence the determination of whether there was an employment contract, its term, if any, and whether there were breaches on the part of the defendants entitling plaintiff to damages.

The second cause of action achieves no separate identity as a cause of action by virtue of the added allegation that the acts of the defendants were done maliciously and in pursuance of a conspiracy. If an employment contract and breach are established, plaintiff will prove a cause of action, regardless of malice or conspiracy, and if he fails to prove a contract and breach, he cannot, on the allegations of the complaint, make a cause of action out of malice or conspiracy. The allegations of malice and conspiracy are, therefore, inconsequential or insufficient.

The orders should be modified by granting the respective motions to dismiss the second cause of action of the complaint and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Martin, P. J., Cohn and Peck, JJ., concur; Dore and Callahan, JJ., dissent in part and vote to dismiss the second cause of action as against the corporate defendants only.

Orders modified by granting the respective motions to dismiss the second cause of action of the complaint and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Settle orders on notice.

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

Related

Arena Invs., L.P. v. DCK Worldwide Holding Inc.
2023 NY Slip Op 02476 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Sylvan Lawrence Co. v. Pennie & Edmonds
235 A.D.2d 215 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Aegis Property Services Corp. v. Hotel Empire Corp.
106 A.D.2d 66 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Scully v. Genesee Milk Producer's Cooperative, Inc.
78 A.D.2d 982 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)
La Fleur v. Montgomery
70 A.D.2d 545 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Ebasco Services, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.
460 F. Supp. 163 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1978)
Fifty States Management Corp. v. Niagara Permanent Savings & Loan Ass'n
58 A.D.2d 177 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Iandoli v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp.
57 A.D.2d 815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)
Savarin Corporation v. National Bank of Pakistan
290 F. Supp. 285 (S.D. New York, 1968)
Albemarle Theatre, Inc. v. Bayberry Realty Corp.
27 A.D.2d 172 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1967)
Berkule v. Feldman
39 Misc. 2d 250 (New York Supreme Court, 1963)
Risolo v. Bruno
36 Misc. 2d 247 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Caprice Imports, Inc. v. Soc. Acc. Semplice Calzaturificio Vibelsport Di Vibelli & C.
13 A.D.2d 952 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
Cuker Industries, Inc. v. Crow Construction Co.
20 Misc. 2d 12 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Wolf v. Glazer
17 Misc. 2d 522 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1959)
Goodman v. Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc.
16 Misc. 2d 858 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Kasen v. Morrell
18 Misc. 2d 158 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Nathanson v. Nathanson
16 Misc. 2d 986 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)
Mokar Properties Corp. v. Hall
6 A.D.2d 536 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)
Cuker Industries, Inc. v. William L. Crow Construction Co.
6 A.D.2d 415 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 A.D. 988, 62 N.Y.S.2d 663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friedman-v-roseth-corp-nyappdiv-1946.