McHugh v. Oatkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McHugh v. Oatkin

245 A.D.2d 275, 665 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12062

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 245 A.D.2d 275 (McHugh v. Oatkin) 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

McHugh v. Oatkin, 245 A.D.2d 275, 665 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to impose [276]*276a constructive trust upon 25% of the shares of SAS Restaurant, Inc., the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kingston, J.), dated April 23, 1996, which, after a hearing, awarded the plaintiff $16,500 for “unpaid salary”.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint is dismissed.

The evidence does not support the Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of “unpaid salary”. There was no clear agreement between the plaintiff and the appellants requiring the payment of salary (cf., Epelbaum v Nefesh Achath B’Yisrael, 237 AD2d 327). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to impose [276]*276a constructive trust upon 25% of the shares of SAS Restaurant, Inc., the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kingston, J.), dated April 23, 1996, which, after a hearing, awarded the plaintiff $16,500 for “unpaid salary”.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and the complaint is dismissed.

The evidence does not support the Supreme Court’s finding that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of “unpaid salary”. There was no clear agreement between the plaintiff and the appellants requiring the payment of salary (cf., Epelbaum v Nefesh Achath B’Yisrael, 237 AD2d 327). Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 275, 665 N.Y.S.2d 945, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mchugh-v-oatkin-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack