Labinsks v. Holst

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Labinsks v. Holst

84 N.Y.S. 991

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 18, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 84 N.Y.S. 991 (Labinsks v. Holst) 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.

Bluebook

Labinsks v. Holst, 84 N.Y.S. 991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

BLANCHARD, J.

The plaintiff was.employed by one Greenstein as a bookkeeper, and he brought this action against the defendant to recover $100 for commissions which he claims to have earned by having induced his employer, Greenstein, to enter into two contracts with the defendant. The court below found in his favor, and the defendant appeals.

A reversal of the judgment is asked on several grounds, but only one need be considered. The appellant contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to the commissions for the reason that said commissions would be in derogation of his employer’s interest. This contention is supported by abundant authority. The plaintiff had no right, while in the employment of Greenstein, to use his influence to induce his employer to make any contract in which the plaintiff had [992]*992a personal interest, without first fully disclosing the fact of such interest to his employer (Spyer v. Fisher, 37 N. Y. Super. Ct. 93; Cassard v. Hinman, 19 N. Y. Super. Ct. 8); and the evidence that the plaintiff’s employer had knowledge of such personal interest of the plaintiff must be clear and convincing. Greenstein denied positively that he had such knowledge. If the commissions are due and payable at all, Greenstein would seem to be entitled to them, and not the plaintiff. Howe v. Savory, 49 Barb. 403, affirmed 51 N. Y. 631.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide event. All concur.

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

BLANCHARD, J.

The plaintiff was.employed by one Greenstein as a bookkeeper, and he brought this action against the defendant to recover $100 for commissions which he claims to have earned by having induced his employer, Greenstein, to enter into two contracts with the defendant. The court below found in his favor, and the defendant appeals.

A reversal of the judgment is asked on several grounds, but only one need be considered. The appellant contends that the plaintiff is not entitled to the commissions for the reason that said commissions would be in derogation of his employer’s interest. This contention is supported by abundant authority. The plaintiff had no right, while in the employment of Greenstein, to use his influence to induce his employer to make any contract in which the plaintiff had [992]*992a personal interest, without first fully disclosing the fact of such interest to his employer (Spyer v. Fisher, 37 N. Y. Super. Ct. 93; Cassard v. Hinman, 19 N. Y. Super. Ct. 8); and the evidence that the plaintiff’s employer had knowledge of such personal interest of the plaintiff must be clear and convincing. Greenstein denied positively that he had such knowledge. If the commissions are due and payable at all, Greenstein would seem to be entitled to them, and not the plaintiff. Howe v. Savory, 49 Barb. 403, affirmed 51 N. Y. 631.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to abide event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 N.Y.S. 991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/labinsks-v-holst-nyappterm-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack