O'Brien v. O'Neill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Brien v. O'Neill

271 A.D.2d 647

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 271 A.D.2d 647 (O'Brien v. O'Neill) 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

O'Brien v. O'Neill, 271 A.D.2d 647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff testified that his commissions for procuring customers for defendant’s guard service were to continue [648]*648to be paid for as long as business relations continued between defendant and such customers. Although the customers were war plants required by the army and the navy to be guarded, there is nothing in the record showing that the guard service which defendant furnished was to last for the duration of the war only. On the oral agreement as testified to by plaintiff, he could claim his commissions if they continued in peacetime production. It has been held that such a contract is within the Statute of Frauds (Cohen v. Bartgis Bros. Co., 264 App. Div. 260, affd. 289 N. Y. 846). The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Martin, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Peck and Van Vooehis, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff testified that his commissions for procuring customers for defendant’s guard service were to continue [648]*648to be paid for as long as business relations continued between defendant and such customers. Although the customers were war plants required by the army and the navy to be guarded, there is nothing in the record showing that the guard service which defendant furnished was to last for the duration of the war only. On the oral agreement as testified to by plaintiff, he could claim his commissions if they continued in peacetime production. It has been held that such a contract is within the Statute of Frauds (Cohen v. Bartgis Bros. Co., 264 App. Div. 260, affd. 289 N. Y. 846). The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Martin, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Peck and Van Vooehis, JJ., concur.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

271 A.D.2d 647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-oneill-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack