Greenfield v. Tripp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenfield v. Tripp

10 A.D.2d 638, 196 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11749

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 A.D.2d 638 (Greenfield v. Tripp) 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

Greenfield v. Tripp, 10 A.D.2d 638, 196 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11749 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the appeal is (1) from a judgment, entered on a jury’s verdict, in favor of respondent, and (2) from an order resettling said judgment so as to add interest thereto. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs. Whether the relationship of respondent to appellant was that of a theatrical employment agency, in which event respondent required a license, or that of a manager, in which event he did not, was a question of fact to be resolved by the jury. (Mandel v. Liebman, 303 N. Y. 88; Hyde v. Vinolas, 234 App. Div. 364.) Interest was properly added to the verdict (Mayaguez Drug Co. v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 260 N. Y. 356), even though the complaint contained no specific demand for interest. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 480; Flamm v. Noble, 296 N. Y. 262.) Present • — ■ Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the appeal is (1) from a judgment, entered on a jury’s verdict, in favor of respondent, and (2) from an order resettling said judgment so as to add interest thereto. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs. Whether the relationship of respondent to appellant was that of a theatrical employment agency, in which event respondent required a license, or that of a manager, in which event he did not, was a question of fact to be resolved by the jury. (Mandel v. Liebman, 303 N. Y. 88; Hyde v. Vinolas, 234 App. Div. 364.) Interest was properly added to the verdict (Mayaguez Drug Co. v. Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co., 260 N. Y. 356), even though the complaint contained no specific demand for interest. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 480; Flamm v. Noble, 296 N. Y. 262.) Present • — ■ Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 638, 196 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenfield-v-tripp-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack