Mason v. Gredysa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mason v. Gredysa

30 A.D.3d 480, 816 N.Y.S.2d 373

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

DecidedJune 13, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.3d 480 (Mason v. Gredysa) 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

Mason v. Gredysa, 30 A.D.3d 480, 816 N.Y.S.2d 373 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of an employment agreement in which the defendant asserted counterclaims to recover damages for breach of the employment agreement, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Eerier, J.), entered August 23, 2004, and (2) a resettled judgment of the same court entered February 24, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against him in the sum of $251,102.27.

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment entered August 23, 2004 is dismissed, as that judgment has been superseded by the resettled judgment entered February 24, 2005; and it is further,

Ordered that the resettled judgment entered February 24, 2005 is reversed, on the law, the judgment is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new trial, with costs to abide the event.

In light of, inter alia, the erroneous, confusing, and incomplete jury charge concerning the parties’ conflicting claims as to who breached their employment contract, which resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, a new trial is required (see Maloney Carpentry, Inc. v Budnick, 19 AD3d 378 [2005]; Penny W. Budoff, P. C. v Jenkins, 143 AD2d 250 [1988]). Miller, J.R, Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of an employment agreement in which the defendant asserted counterclaims to recover damages for breach of the employment agreement, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Eerier, J.), entered August 23, 2004, and (2) a resettled judgment of the same court entered February 24, 2005, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of the defendant and against him in the sum of $251,102.27.

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment entered August 23, 2004 is dismissed, as that judgment has been superseded by the resettled judgment entered February 24, 2005; and it is further,

Ordered that the resettled judgment entered February 24, 2005 is reversed, on the law, the judgment is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new trial, with costs to abide the event.

In light of, inter alia, the erroneous, confusing, and incomplete jury charge concerning the parties’ conflicting claims as to who breached their employment contract, which resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff, a new trial is required (see Maloney Carpentry, Inc. v Budnick, 19 AD3d 378 [2005]; Penny W. Budoff, P. C. v Jenkins, 143 AD2d 250 [1988]). Miller, J.R, Ritter, Goldstein and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.3d 480, 816 N.Y.S.2d 373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mason-v-gredysa-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack