Kidd v. Oakes

39 Misc. 2d 645, 241 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1861
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 27, 1963·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question raised by this appeal is whether plaintiffs may recover the benefit paid to defendant pursuant to a profit-sharing plan. While the contention is that the contract results in unlawful restraint, yet an employee may legally undertake a restriction of his liberty to earn his living if he, by the contract, may be relieved of the restriction by forfeiting a contract right or by adhering to the provisions of the contract (Kristt v. Whelan, 4 A D 2d 195, affd. 5 N Y 2d 807; Liddcoat v. Kenosha City Bd. of Educ., 17 Wis. 2d 400; Pratt v. Short, 79 N. Y. 437). The agreement may not be enforced to obtain affirmative relief in enforcement thereof but the sums paid in the circumstances here may not be retained (Rosasco Creameries v. Cohen, 276 N. Y. 274; Warner v. De Cuevas, 186 Misc. 150).

[646] The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed for plaintiffs as prayed for in the complaint, with costs.

Concur — G-old, J. P., Hoestadter, and Oapozzoli, JJ. Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Kidd v. Oakes, 39 Misc. 2d 645, 241 N.Y.S.2d 403, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

39 Misc. 2d 645 (Kidd v. Oakes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

LKQ Corporation v. Robert Rutledge
Supreme Court of Delaware, 2024
International Business MacHines Corp. v. Martson
37 F. Supp. 2d 613 (S.D. New York, 1999)
Amory H. Bradford v. The New York Times Company
501 F.2d 51 (Second Circuit, 1974)
Friedman v. Romaine
77 Misc. 2d 134 (New York Supreme Court, 1974)
Smith v. Meyer
78 Misc. 2d 711 (New York Supreme Court, 1973)
Kerpen v. First Investors Corp.
45 Misc. 2d 793 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)