Lipshutz v. Proctor

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lipshutz v. Proctor

95 N.Y.S. 566

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedOctober 27, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 95 N.Y.S. 566 (Lipshutz v. Proctor) 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

Lipshutz v. Proctor, 95 N.Y.S. 566 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

The contract for services was terminable for specified reasons, and as to the existence of grounds for a termination within the agreement it was provided that the defendant should be “the sole arbiter and judge.” At the trial, the defendant rested his case upon [567]*567the plaintiff’s proof, and the justice dismissed the complaint upon the merits.

The proof thus furnished afforded no support for a defense of justification in the matter of the plaintiff’s discharge, since, under the contract, she was clearly entitled to the defendant’s exercise of his personal judgment upon the question of the existence of grounds, as specified, for a termination. This condition was not met by a discharge at the hands of another employé of the defendant, upon his own judgment; and nothing further is suggested by the evidence.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

The contract for services was terminable for specified reasons, and as to the existence of grounds for a termination within the agreement it was provided that the defendant should be “the sole arbiter and judge.” At the trial, the defendant rested his case upon [567]*567the plaintiff’s proof, and the justice dismissed the complaint upon the merits.

The proof thus furnished afforded no support for a defense of justification in the matter of the plaintiff’s discharge, since, under the contract, she was clearly entitled to the defendant’s exercise of his personal judgment upon the question of the existence of grounds, as specified, for a termination. This condition was not met by a discharge at the hands of another employé of the defendant, upon his own judgment; and nothing further is suggested by the evidence.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.Y.S. 566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lipshutz-v-proctor-nyappterm-1905.