Hirsch v. Associated Amusement Machine Operators of New York, Inc.
This text of 205 Misc. 105 (Hirsch v. Associated Amusement Machine Operators of New York, Inc.) 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.
Opinion
The court below seemingly dismissed the complaint upon the ground that the promise of the defendant to pay the plaintiff severance pay upon his submitting his written resignation was an unenforcible obligation lacking consideration. This was error. The submission of plaintiff’s written resignation was sufficient consideration for the promise to pay him severance pay. We do not at this time pass upon the question whether the refusal of the defendant to continue the severance pay was for just cause.
The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered, with $30 costs to appellant to abide the event.
Eder, Schreiber and Hecht, JJ., concur.
Judgment reversed, etc.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
205 Misc. 105, 127 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1953 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2526, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirsch-v-associated-amusement-machine-operators-of-new-york-inc-nyappterm-1953.