Ross v. Keene Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ross v. Keene Corp.

52 A.D.2d 581, 382 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12159

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

DecidedApril 5, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 581 (Ross v. Keene 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

Ross v. Keene Corp., 52 A.D.2d 581, 382 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12159 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to recover damages for breach of contract, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 22, 1975, which (1) denied without prejudice its motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first and second causes of action on the ground of the Statute of Frauds and (2) denied its motion to dismiss the first cause of action on the basis of a defense founded upon documentary evidence. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s time to serve its answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The alleged oral commission agreement is not within the Statute of Frauds. It was terminable at will by either party (see North Shore Bottling Co. v Schmidt & Sons, 22 NY2d 171; Nat Nal Serv. Stations v Wolf, 304 NY 332; Rifkind v Web IV Music, 67 Mise 2d 26), and did not require payment of commissions on reorders (see Zupan v Blumberg, 2 NY2d 547; Hausen v Academy Print. & Specialty Co., 34 AD2d 792). Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Cohalan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to recover damages for breach of contract, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated April 22, 1975, which (1) denied without prejudice its motion to dismiss plaintiff’s first and second causes of action on the ground of the Statute of Frauds and (2) denied its motion to dismiss the first cause of action on the basis of a defense founded upon documentary evidence. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Defendant’s time to serve its answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The alleged oral commission agreement is not within the Statute of Frauds. It was terminable at will by either party (see North Shore Bottling Co. v Schmidt & Sons, 22 NY2d 171; Nat Nal Serv. Stations v Wolf, 304 NY 332; Rifkind v Web IV Music, 67 Mise 2d 26), and did not require payment of commissions on reorders (see Zupan v Blumberg, 2 NY2d 547; Hausen v Academy Print. & Specialty Co., 34 AD2d 792). Gulotta, P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Cohalan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 581, 382 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-keene-corp-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack