Halpern v. Horwitz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Halpern v. Horwitz

156 N.Y.S. 380

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 28, 1915

StatusPublished

This text of 156 N.Y.S. 380 (Halpern v. Horwitz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Halpern v. Horwitz, 156 N.Y.S. 380 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sued for damages for his unlawful discharge in May, 1913, under a contract of employment with defendants terminating in December.

[381]*381[1] The learned judge below excluded from the consideration of the jury any damages accruing after July 17th on the ground that on that date defendants had offered plaintiff re-employment. It was, however, at best a question for the jury whether, under the circumstances, plaintiff was bound to accept such re-employment. See Heiferman v. Greenhut Co., 83 Misc. Rep. 435, 145 N. Y. Supp. 142.

[2] Further error was committed in refusing to charge that the burden of proving plaintiff’s opportunity to earn money after the discharge lay upon the defendants. Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, 377, 19 Am. Rep. 285.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sued for damages for his unlawful discharge in May, 1913, under a contract of employment with defendants terminating in December.

[381]*381[1] The learned judge below excluded from the consideration of the jury any damages accruing after July 17th on the ground that on that date defendants had offered plaintiff re-employment. It was, however, at best a question for the jury whether, under the circumstances, plaintiff was bound to accept such re-employment. See Heiferman v. Greenhut Co., 83 Misc. Rep. 435, 145 N. Y. Supp. 142.

[2] Further error was committed in refusing to charge that the burden of proving plaintiff’s opportunity to earn money after the discharge lay upon the defendants. Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, 377, 19 Am. Rep. 285.

Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 N.Y.S. 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halpern-v-horwitz-nyappterm-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack