Steeneck v. Ace Builders Supply Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Steeneck v. Ace Builders Supply Co.

258 A.D. 745, 15 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6735

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 745 (Steeneck v. Ace Builders Supply Co.) 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

Steeneck v. Ace Builders Supply Co., 258 A.D. 745, 15 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought by an assignee to recover commissions alleged to be due under a contract of employment, in which the employer impleaded the assignor and counterclaimed for a reformation of the contract and for damages on account of a breach of the contract, judgment in favor of defendant Ace Builders Supply Company, Inc., reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The verdict of $1,000 in favor of the plaintiff for commissions remaining due could not be supported under any view of the evidence, and was obviously a compromise. Lazansky; P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action brought by an assignee to recover commissions alleged to be due under a contract of employment, in which the employer impleaded the assignor and counterclaimed for a reformation of the contract and for damages on account of a breach of the contract, judgment in favor of defendant Ace Builders Supply Company, Inc., reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The verdict of $1,000 in favor of the plaintiff for commissions remaining due could not be supported under any view of the evidence, and was obviously a compromise. Lazansky; P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 745, 15 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steeneck-v-ace-builders-supply-co-nyappdiv-1939.