Morris Cohon & Co. v. Russell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Morris Cohon & Co. v. Russell

27 A.D.2d 522, 275 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2866

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.2d 522 (Morris Cohon & Co. v. Russell) 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

Morris Cohon & Co. v. Russell, 27 A.D.2d 522, 275 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered on or about June 14, 1966 denying plaintiff’s motion to strike the first, second and third affirmative defenses in the answer unanimously modified, on the law, by striking the third defense, and as so modified affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The third defense is that the plaintiff is not a duly licensed employment agency. In the complaint it is alleged that the plaintiff performed services resulting in the sale of defendant’s stock holdings in a certain corporation for the sum of $400,000, and in connection therewith procured for the defendant employment with the purchaser for five years at an annual salary of $31,200. Article 11 of the General Business Law which provides for the licensing of employment agencies was not designed to apply to transactions such as the one in dispute, where the employment was merely incidental to the essential purpose of the contract, namely, the sale of the stock; and so the third defense is insufficient in law. (Cf. Weingast v. Rialto Pastry Shop, 243 N. Y. 113; Dodge v. Richmond, 5. A D 2d 593; Heyman v. Howell, 133 N. Y. S. 2d 19.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Capozzoli and Witmer, JJ.

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

Order entered on or about June 14, 1966 denying plaintiff’s motion to strike the first, second and third affirmative defenses in the answer unanimously modified, on the law, by striking the third defense, and as so modified affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The third defense is that the plaintiff is not a duly licensed employment agency. In the complaint it is alleged that the plaintiff performed services resulting in the sale of defendant’s stock holdings in a certain corporation for the sum of $400,000, and in connection therewith procured for the defendant employment with the purchaser for five years at an annual salary of $31,200. Article 11 of the General Business Law which provides for the licensing of employment agencies was not designed to apply to transactions such as the one in dispute, where the employment was merely incidental to the essential purpose of the contract, namely, the sale of the stock; and so the third defense is insufficient in law. (Cf. Weingast v. Rialto Pastry Shop, 243 N. Y. 113; Dodge v. Richmond, 5. A D 2d 593; Heyman v. Howell, 133 N. Y. S. 2d 19.) Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Capozzoli and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.2d 522, 275 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-cohon-co-v-russell-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack