Murray v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murray v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.

20 A.D.2d 772, 247 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4197

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 772 (Murray v. Elizabeth Arden Sales 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

Murray v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp., 20 A.D.2d 772, 247 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4197 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on April 17, 1963, denying summary judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion for summary judgment granted, with $10 costs. Plaintiff sues on an oral hiring for the calendar year 1961 at a stated salary plus a commission of 2% of any increase in sales of defendant’s fashion department over the sales made in 1960. The alleged contract [773]*773was entered into on December 6, 1960. It was clearly not capable of performance within one year (Briefstein v. Rotando Constr. Co., 8 A D 2d 349; cf. Dukes of Dixieland v. Audio Fidelity, 19 A D 2d 872). The attempt to bring the action within the rule of Raes v. So-Lite Furniture Corp. (4 A D 2d 851) on the theory that this was a hiring at will and the terms fixing the commission were merely descriptive of the method of computation, does not accord with plaintiff’s own version of the conversation constituting the agreement. Appeal from order entered on May 17, 1963, dismissed, without costs. - Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on April 17, 1963, denying summary judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion for summary judgment granted, with $10 costs. Plaintiff sues on an oral hiring for the calendar year 1961 at a stated salary plus a commission of 2% of any increase in sales of defendant’s fashion department over the sales made in 1960. The alleged contract [773]*773was entered into on December 6, 1960. It was clearly not capable of performance within one year (Briefstein v. Rotando Constr. Co., 8 A D 2d 349; cf. Dukes of Dixieland v. Audio Fidelity, 19 A D 2d 872). The attempt to bring the action within the rule of Raes v. So-Lite Furniture Corp. (4 A D 2d 851) on the theory that this was a hiring at will and the terms fixing the commission were merely descriptive of the method of computation, does not accord with plaintiff’s own version of the conversation constituting the agreement. Appeal from order entered on May 17, 1963, dismissed, without costs. - Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 772, 247 N.Y.S.2d 810, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-elizabeth-arden-sales-corp-nyappdiv-1964.