Harry M. Stevens, Inc. v. Medina

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harry M. Stevens, Inc. v. Medina

63 A.D.2d 925, 406 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11943

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

DecidedJune 20, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 63 A.D.2d 925 (Harry M. Stevens, Inc. v. Medina) 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

Harry M. Stevens, Inc. v. Medina, 63 A.D.2d 925, 406 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 22, 1978, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and staying the prosecution of the instant action for three months from February 21, 1978, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of granting summary judgment to defendant dismissing the complaint, and, except, as thus modified, affirmed. Defendant in this action commenced suit against plaintiff in Puerto Rico to recover damages for breach of an employment contract. That case is in a relatively advanced stage with issue joined and pretrial discovery proceedings almost completed. Citing section 5-701 (subd a, par 1) of the General Obligations Law, plaintiff, the defendant in that action, thereafter commenced this proceeding seeking a judgment declaring that the oral employment contract, as alleged by the plaintiff in the action in Puerto Rico, is unenforceable inasmuch as it was for a term in excess of one year. The complaint should be dismissed. (CPLR 3211, subd [a], par 4.) Where there is no necessity for resorting to the declaratory judgment it should not be employed. (James v Alderton Dock Yards, 256 NY 298, 305.) Another action is pending involving the same parties and issues in which plaintiff will have a resolution of the question which he presents here. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Birns, Silverman and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered February 22, 1978, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and staying the prosecution of the instant action for three months from February 21, 1978, unanimously modified, on the law, without costs or disbursements, to the extent of granting summary judgment to defendant dismissing the complaint, and, except, as thus modified, affirmed. Defendant in this action commenced suit against plaintiff in Puerto Rico to recover damages for breach of an employment contract. That case is in a relatively advanced stage with issue joined and pretrial discovery proceedings almost completed. Citing section 5-701 (subd a, par 1) of the General Obligations Law, plaintiff, the defendant in that action, thereafter commenced this proceeding seeking a judgment declaring that the oral employment contract, as alleged by the plaintiff in the action in Puerto Rico, is unenforceable inasmuch as it was for a term in excess of one year. The complaint should be dismissed. (CPLR 3211, subd [a], par 4.) Where there is no necessity for resorting to the declaratory judgment it should not be employed. (James v Alderton Dock Yards, 256 NY 298, 305.) Another action is pending involving the same parties and issues in which plaintiff will have a resolution of the question which he presents here. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Birns, Silverman and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 925, 406 N.Y.S.2d 99, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harry-m-stevens-inc-v-medina-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack