Miller v. Burlington Mills Ribbon Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Burlington Mills Ribbon Corp.

278 A.D. 854, 104 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4978

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

DecidedMay 21, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 854 (Miller v. Burlington Mills Ribbon 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

Miller v. Burlington Mills Ribbon Corp., 278 A.D. 854, 104 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4978 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for damages based upon the alleged wrongful dismissal of respondent in breach of a contract of employment, appeal is taken from an order denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the alleged contract of employment is void under the Statute of Frauds. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. The note or memorandum upon which respondent relies evidences only a hiring at will [855]*855{Martin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 148 N. Y. 117; Watson v. Gugimo, 204 Ñ. Y. 535; Bulkley v. Kaolin Products Co., 187 App. Div. 103; Rider v. Standard Safety Razor Corp., 237 App. Div. 853), and recourse may not be had to parol evidence to establish a different intention of the parties {Drake v. Seaman, 97 N. Y: 230; Matter of Levin, 276 App. Div. 739; Brodlie v. Fink, 275 App. Div. 1061). Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for damages based upon the alleged wrongful dismissal of respondent in breach of a contract of employment, appeal is taken from an order denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the alleged contract of employment is void under the Statute of Frauds. Order reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. The note or memorandum upon which respondent relies evidences only a hiring at will [855]*855{Martin v. New York Life Ins. Co., 148 N. Y. 117; Watson v. Gugimo, 204 Ñ. Y. 535; Bulkley v. Kaolin Products Co., 187 App. Div. 103; Rider v. Standard Safety Razor Corp., 237 App. Div. 853), and recourse may not be had to parol evidence to establish a different intention of the parties {Drake v. Seaman, 97 N. Y: 230; Matter of Levin, 276 App. Div. 739; Brodlie v. Fink, 275 App. Div. 1061). Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 854, 104 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4978, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-burlington-mills-ribbon-corp-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack