Payne v. Scholnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Payne v. Scholnick

257 A.D. 923, 12 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8414

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

DecidedMay 19, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D. 923 (Payne v. Scholnick) 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

Payne v. Scholnick, 257 A.D. 923, 12 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8414 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The evidence establishes that the defendant falsely and fraudulently induced the plaintiff to leave his position and to accept employment with the defendant’s company on the assurance that the defendant was going to stay in business when the defendant well knew that he was not and that he intended to sell the business at the earliest opportunity and that, if he sold the business, plaintiff would sustain serious damage through the fraud practiced upon him. In breach of his assurance the defendant sold the business and discharged the plaintiff shortly after plaintiff entered upon his employment. The fraudulent transaction was of such character as to give to the plaintiff a right of action for damages. (See Adams v. Gillig, 199 N. Y. 314; Hobaica v. Byrne, 216 App. Div. 307.) Upon the proof we are unable to say that the damages awarded to the plaintiff were more than sufficient to indemnify him for the actual pecuniary loss sustained by reason of the deceit practiced upon him by the defendant. All concur. (The judgment of the Monroe County Court affirms a judgment of the Rochester City Court, Civil Branch, in favor of plaintiff in an action under a contract.) Present — Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The evidence establishes that the defendant falsely and fraudulently induced the plaintiff to leave his position and to accept employment with the defendant’s company on the assurance that the defendant was going to stay in business when the defendant well knew that he was not and that he intended to sell the business at the earliest opportunity and that, if he sold the business, plaintiff would sustain serious damage through the fraud practiced upon him. In breach of his assurance the defendant sold the business and discharged the plaintiff shortly after plaintiff entered upon his employment. The fraudulent transaction was of such character as to give to the plaintiff a right of action for damages. (See Adams v. Gillig, 199 N. Y. 314; Hobaica v. Byrne, 216 App. Div. 307.) Upon the proof we are unable to say that the damages awarded to the plaintiff were more than sufficient to indemnify him for the actual pecuniary loss sustained by reason of the deceit practiced upon him by the defendant. All concur. (The judgment of the Monroe County Court affirms a judgment of the Rochester City Court, Civil Branch, in favor of plaintiff in an action under a contract.) Present — Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D. 923, 12 N.Y.S.2d 242, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/payne-v-scholnick-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack