Treat v. Continental Vending Machine Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Treat v. Continental Vending Machine Corp.

18 A.D.2d 896, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4353

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 896 (Treat v. Continental Vending Machine 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

Treat v. Continental Vending Machine Corp., 18 A.D.2d 896, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4353 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin and Valente, JJ.; Stevens and Noonan, JJ., dissent in the following dissenting memorandum: We dissent and vote to reverse and order a new trial, solely on the question of wrongful discharge and what, if any, damages flowed therefrom. On the record before us it cannot be said as a matter of law that the employment contract was rightfully terminated, and that the plaintiff did not suffer pecuniary loss as a result. The drawing and use of plaintiff’s own money, previously earned, which had been placed in a dormant corporation wholly o-syned by plaintiff and plaintiff’s wife, cannot serve as compensation for the discharge if, in fact, it was wrongful.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin and Valente, JJ.; Stevens and Noonan, JJ., dissent in the following dissenting memorandum: We dissent and vote to reverse and order a new trial, solely on the question of wrongful discharge and what, if any, damages flowed therefrom. On the record before us it cannot be said as a matter of law that the employment contract was rightfully terminated, and that the plaintiff did not suffer pecuniary loss as a result. The drawing and use of plaintiff’s own money, previously earned, which had been placed in a dormant corporation wholly o-syned by plaintiff and plaintiff’s wife, cannot serve as compensation for the discharge if, in fact, it was wrongful.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 896, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treat-v-continental-vending-machine-corp-nyappdiv-1963.