Opinion · Nylaw New York
MURRAY v. ELIZABETH ARDEN SALES CORPORATION, 20 A.D.2d 772 [1st Dept 1964]
NINNA MURRAY, Respondent, v. ELIZABETH ARDEN SALES Corp., Appellant., 20 A.D.2d 772 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. 1964)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Nylaw New York
- Jurisdiction
- Nylaw
- Date
- 1964-03-19
- Topic
- general
MURRAY v. ELIZABETH ARDEN SALES CORPORATION, 20 A.D.2d 772 [1st Dept 1964] NINNA MURRAY, Respondent, v. ELIZABETH ARDEN SALES CORPORATION, Appellant.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. March 19, 1964 Order, entered on April 17, 1963, denying summary judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion for summary judgment granted, with $10 costs. Plaintiff sues on an oral hiring for the calendar year 1961 at a stated salary plus a commission of 2% of any increase in sales of defendant's fashion department over the sales made in 1960.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed MURRAY v. ELIZABETH ARDEN SALES CORPORATION, 20 A.D.2d 772 [1st Dept 1964]. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
MURRAY v. ELIZABETH ARDEN SALES CORPORATION,20 A.D.2d 772[1st Dept 1964]
NINNA MURRAY, Respondent, v. ELIZABETH ARDEN SALES CORPORATION, Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
Order, entered on April 17, 1963, denying summary judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion for summary judgment granted, with $10 costs. Plaintiff sues on an oral hiring for the calendar year 1961 at a stated salary plus a commission of 2% of any increase in sales of defendant's fashion department over the sales made in 1960. The alleged contractPage 773was entered into on December 6, 1960. It was clearly not capable of performance within one year (Briefsteinv.Rotondo Constr. Co.,8 A.D.2d 349; cf.Dukes of Dixielandv.Audio Fidelity,19 A.D.2d 872). The attempt to bring the action within the rule ofRaesv.So-LiteFurniture Corp.(4 A.D.2d 851) on the theory that this was a hiring at will and the terms fixing the commission were merely descriptive of the method of computation, does not accord with plaintiff's own version of the conversation constituting the agreement. Appeal from order entered on May 17, 1963, dismissed, without costs.
Concur — Breitel, J.P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.