Shaff v. Schlachetzky

62 A.D. 459, 70 N.Y.S. 1133

This text of 62 A.D. 459 (Shaff v. Schlachetzky) 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
Shaff v. Schlachetzky, 62 A.D. 459, 70 N.Y.S. 1133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Opinion

Jerks, J.:

The defendant appeals from a judgment against him upon an alleged breach of his contract of employment of the plaintiff. The sole question litigated was whether such employment was for a certain period, within which the plaintiff was discharged, or by the week. This presented a fair issue of fact for the court, and the testimony before us would not warrant a disturbance of its decision. The appellant insists that the court erred in excluding his testimony offered to show the terms of his employment of his workmen other than the plaintiff. I think that the ruling was right. (Lichtenhem v. Fisher, 6 App. Div. 385 ; 1 Greenl. Ev. [15th ed.] § 52 and case cited.)

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concurred, except Woodward, J., absent.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Lichtenhein v. Fisher
6 A.D. 385 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 A.D. 459, 70 N.Y.S. 1133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaff-v-schlachetzky-nyappdiv-1901.