Sales Consultants, Inc. v. Di Carlo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sales Consultants, Inc. v. Di Carlo

24 A.D.2d 747, 263 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3290

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

DecidedOctober 19, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 747 (Sales Consultants, Inc. v. Di Carlo) 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

Sales Consultants, Inc. v. Di Carlo, 24 A.D.2d 747, 263 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3290 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment denying petitioner's application for a license for the operation of an employment agency in the City of Few York, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $50 costs to petitioner-appellant, and the matter remanded to respondent for reconsideration of said application in accordance herewith. We agree with respondent’s contention that he is not limited, in rejecting applications because of unsuitability of the name under which the agency is proposed to be operated, to those instances which are set out in the statute. But we are not in accord with his determination that any use of the word “ consultant ” is proscribed. In proper context the word is fitting and an absolute ban is therefore arbitrary. If it appears that a proposed name is intended to mislead or misinform, it may well be within the power of the respondent to reject an application for an employment agency license. However, “ counselling services ” are within the statutory definition of an employment agency. (General Business Law, § 171, subd. 2, par. [b].) In light of this, the proposed name or some substitute name which may include the concept of consultation should be reconsidered. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McFally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ. [46 Misc 2d 402.]

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

Judgment denying petitioner's application for a license for the operation of an employment agency in the City of Few York, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $50 costs to petitioner-appellant, and the matter remanded to respondent for reconsideration of said application in accordance herewith. We agree with respondent’s contention that he is not limited, in rejecting applications because of unsuitability of the name under which the agency is proposed to be operated, to those instances which are set out in the statute. But we are not in accord with his determination that any use of the word “ consultant ” is proscribed. In proper context the word is fitting and an absolute ban is therefore arbitrary. If it appears that a proposed name is intended to mislead or misinform, it may well be within the power of the respondent to reject an application for an employment agency license. However, “ counselling services ” are within the statutory definition of an employment agency. (General Business Law, § 171, subd. 2, par. [b].) In light of this, the proposed name or some substitute name which may include the concept of consultation should be reconsidered. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Valente, McFally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ. [46 Misc 2d 402.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 747, 263 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sales-consultants-inc-v-di-carlo-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack