From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murray v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 19, 1964
20 A.D.2d 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

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. The alleged contract was entered into on December 6, 1960. It was clearly not capable of performance within one year ( Briefstein v. Rotondo Constr. Co., 8 A.D.2d 349; cf. Dukes of Dixieland v. Audio Fidelity, 19 A.D.2d 872). The attempt to bring the action within the rule of Raes v. So-Lite Furniture 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.


Summaries of

Murray v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 19, 1964
20 A.D.2d 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Murray v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corporation

Case Details

Full title:NINNA MURRAY, Respondent, v. ELIZABETH ARDEN SALES CORPORATION, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 19, 1964

Citations

20 A.D.2d 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Rifkind v. Web IV Music, Inc.

Of course, that is not the situation in the case at bar, as interestingly pinpointed in a memorandum decision…

Murray v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.

Both motions were denied at Special Term, plaintiff's on the ground that because of positions already taken…