Parrish Co. v. Kriegel

Full title: AMOS PARRISH CO., INC., Respondent, v. MAX E. KRIEGEL, Appellant

Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jul 7, 1960

28 Misc. 2d 501 (N.Y. App. Term 1960)

219 N.Y.S.2d 443

Opinion

July 7, 1960

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, GEORGE STARKE, J.

Norman J. Lowey for appellant.

Arthur L. Gould for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The notation on the check that it is an advance against commissions to be earned does not necessarily make the advance a loan, despite the added words "to be adjusted every month". Nor was the asserted agreement for a flat salary during the training period inconsistent with the commission arrangement. Hence there were triable issues both on the plaintiff's cause of action and the counterclaim.

The judgment and order should be reversed, with $10 costs, and motion denied.

Concur — STEUER, J.P., HOFSTADTER and AURELIO, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.