Perrine v. Forward Ass'n

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perrine v. Forward Ass'n

247 A.D.2d 308, 668 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1593

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 308 (Perrine v. Forward Ass'n) 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

Perrine v. Forward Ass'n, 247 A.D.2d 308, 668 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered December 19, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs first, second and third causes of action and denied plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend his complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[309]*309Since it is clear that the parties’ agreement conditioned plaintiffs entitlement to commissions upon defendant’s receipt of advertising revenues, and equally clear that, as is here relevant, such revenues were not received, plaintiffs first cause of action seeking commissions was without merit as a matter of law and was properly dismissed by the IAS Court. Similarly without merit and properly dismissed by the IAS Court was plaintiffs second cause of action seeking reimbursement for travel expenditures; the parties’ agreement made no provision for such reimbursement and plaintiff has, in any case, conceded that defendant was under no obligation to reimburse him for the expenditures claimed. Finally, plaintiffs third cause of action for unpaid wages was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), and it was a proper exercise of the IAS Court’s discretion to deny plaintiffs cross motion to amend his third cause of action. We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered December 19, 1996, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs first, second and third causes of action and denied plaintiffs cross motion for leave to amend his complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

[309]*309Since it is clear that the parties’ agreement conditioned plaintiffs entitlement to commissions upon defendant’s receipt of advertising revenues, and equally clear that, as is here relevant, such revenues were not received, plaintiffs first cause of action seeking commissions was without merit as a matter of law and was properly dismissed by the IAS Court. Similarly without merit and properly dismissed by the IAS Court was plaintiffs second cause of action seeking reimbursement for travel expenditures; the parties’ agreement made no provision for such reimbursement and plaintiff has, in any case, conceded that defendant was under no obligation to reimburse him for the expenditures claimed. Finally, plaintiffs third cause of action for unpaid wages was properly dismissed for failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211 [a] [7]), and it was a proper exercise of the IAS Court’s discretion to deny plaintiffs cross motion to amend his third cause of action. We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 308, 668 N.Y.S.2d 467, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrine-v-forward-assn-nyappdiv-1998.