Ohnemus v. Preusse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ohnemus v. Preusse

44 A.D.2d 783, 355 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5119

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

DecidedMay 2, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 783 (Ohnemus v. Preusse) 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

Ohnemus v. Preusse, 44 A.D.2d 783, 355 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5119 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 25, 1973, denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The first plaintiff, who was resident counsel with the defendant bank, and the second plaintiff, who was his secretary there, contend that the bank’s outside law firm and a specific partner thereof, together with a director of the bank, gave false information to the bank’s board of directors concerning the quality of the plaintiffs’ work in order to have them dismissed for the purpose of the outside counsel obtaining for one of its members the position of resident counsel. While it may be that because the plaintiff’s employment arrangement was at will, there is no cause of action (see Harris v. Home Ind. Co., 16 Misc 2d 702 and cases cited therein), and it can also be said that outside counsel is privileged in its communications to the bank (see Pecue v. West, 233 N. Y. 316, 319), releases were signed by the plaintiffs containing the following language: “ your receipt of the payments referred to shall constitute a full and complete settlement of any and all claims which you may have against the Bank, its officers and employees by reason of your employment and its cessation.” Under the circumstances, summary judgment in favor of the defendants was warranted. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 25, 1973, denying the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, the motion granted, and the complaint dismissed. The first plaintiff, who was resident counsel with the defendant bank, and the second plaintiff, who was his secretary there, contend that the bank’s outside law firm and a specific partner thereof, together with a director of the bank, gave false information to the bank’s board of directors concerning the quality of the plaintiffs’ work in order to have them dismissed for the purpose of the outside counsel obtaining for one of its members the position of resident counsel. While it may be that because the plaintiff’s employment arrangement was at will, there is no cause of action (see Harris v. Home Ind. Co., 16 Misc 2d 702 and cases cited therein), and it can also be said that outside counsel is privileged in its communications to the bank (see Pecue v. West, 233 N. Y. 316, 319), releases were signed by the plaintiffs containing the following language: “ your receipt of the payments referred to shall constitute a full and complete settlement of any and all claims which you may have against the Bank, its officers and employees by reason of your employment and its cessation.” Under the circumstances, summary judgment in favor of the defendants was warranted. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 783, 355 N.Y.S.2d 100, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohnemus-v-preusse-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack