Jerry Miller Associates, Inc. v. Ganger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jerry Miller Associates, Inc. v. Ganger

201 A.D.2d 461, 607 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 999

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 201 A.D.2d 461 (Jerry Miller Associates, Inc. v. Ganger) 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

Jerry Miller Associates, Inc. v. Ganger, 201 A.D.2d 461, 607 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 999 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unfair competition, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Saladino, J.), dated November 20, 1991, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing their second, third, and fourth counterclaims.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for partial summary judgment is denied, and the second, third, and fourth counterclaims are reinstated.

We conclude that the alleged oral agreement which involved the exchange of the defendant Robert Ganger’s services for commissions equal to a percentage of the profits of the plaintiff corporation did not confer on Ganger an equity participation in the corporation. Therefore, the defendants’ second, third, and fourth counterclaims are not barred by the Statute of Frauds set forth in UCC 8-319 (cf., Newman v Crazy Eddie, 119 AD2d 738). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for unfair competition, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Saladino, J.), dated November 20, 1991, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing their second, third, and fourth counterclaims.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion for partial summary judgment is denied, and the second, third, and fourth counterclaims are reinstated.

We conclude that the alleged oral agreement which involved the exchange of the defendant Robert Ganger’s services for commissions equal to a percentage of the profits of the plaintiff corporation did not confer on Ganger an equity participation in the corporation. Therefore, the defendants’ second, third, and fourth counterclaims are not barred by the Statute of Frauds set forth in UCC 8-319 (cf., Newman v Crazy Eddie, 119 AD2d 738). Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 A.D.2d 461, 607 N.Y.S.2d 131, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 999, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jerry-miller-associates-inc-v-ganger-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack