Weinstein v. Primrose Blouse Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Weinstein v. Primrose Blouse Co.

279 A.D. 764, 108 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3698

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 279 A.D. 764 (Weinstein v. Primrose Blouse 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

Weinstein v. Primrose Blouse Co., 279 A.D. 764, 108 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3698 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

The corporate defendant was owned and controlled solely by the individual defendant. In our opinion, the phrase “ cessation of business ” should be interpreted to mean the complete cessation by the person controlling the corporate defendant of his interest in the blouse business then conducted, and that the continuance of the same blouse business by such person or by his nominee in another legal form does not constitute the “ cessation of business ” within the meaning of the contract. Although in this action at law the individual defendant may not be held liable for breach of this employment contract made solely with the corporate defendant, partial summary judgment may not be granted in his favor as to part of the one cause of action stated in the complaint. (Luotto v. Field, 294 N. Y. 460.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

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

The corporate defendant was owned and controlled solely by the individual defendant. In our opinion, the phrase “ cessation of business ” should be interpreted to mean the complete cessation by the person controlling the corporate defendant of his interest in the blouse business then conducted, and that the continuance of the same blouse business by such person or by his nominee in another legal form does not constitute the “ cessation of business ” within the meaning of the contract. Although in this action at law the individual defendant may not be held liable for breach of this employment contract made solely with the corporate defendant, partial summary judgment may not be granted in his favor as to part of the one cause of action stated in the complaint. (Luotto v. Field, 294 N. Y. 460.) Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D. 764, 108 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weinstein-v-primrose-blouse-co-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack