Krasilovsky v. Krasilovsky Bros. Trucking Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krasilovsky v. Krasilovsky Bros. Trucking Corp.

263 A.D. 898, 32 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7268

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 263 A.D. 898 (Krasilovsky v. Krasilovsky Bros. Trucking Corp.) 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

Krasilovsky v. Krasilovsky Bros. Trucking Corp., 263 A.D. 898, 32 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on contract, defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint for insufficiency. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The contract in suit, by which the defendant corporation employed plaintiff as president, has a definite duration and is, therefore, not a contract of employment at will. (Watson v. Gugino, 204 N. Y. 535, 541; United Chem. & Exterm. Co. v. Security Exterm. Corp., 246 App. Div. 258, 259.) Since the directors of the defendant corporation are its sole stockholders, the agreement is legal. (Fells v. Katz, 256 N. Y. 67, 71-73; Clark v. Dodge, 269 id. 410, 415, 416.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on contract, defendant appeals from an order denying its motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint for insufficiency. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. The contract in suit, by which the defendant corporation employed plaintiff as president, has a definite duration and is, therefore, not a contract of employment at will. (Watson v. Gugino, 204 N. Y. 535, 541; United Chem. & Exterm. Co. v. Security Exterm. Corp., 246 App. Div. 258, 259.) Since the directors of the defendant corporation are its sole stockholders, the agreement is legal. (Fells v. Katz, 256 N. Y. 67, 71-73; Clark v. Dodge, 269 id. 410, 415, 416.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 898, 32 N.Y.S.2d 534, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krasilovsky-v-krasilovsky-bros-trucking-corp-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack