Miller v. Volk & Huxley Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1974 |
| Parties | Jack MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VOLK & HUXLEY INC. et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
B. A. Tessler, New York City, for plaintiff-appellant.
M. L. Levitt, New York City, for defendants-respondents.
Before McGIVERN, P.J., and MARKEWICH, NUNEZ, TILZER and LANE, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County entered May 21, 1971, which, Inter alia, dismissed the first two causes of action, insofar as appealed from, unanimously modified on the law to the extent of reinstating the first cause of action and otherwise affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. This is without prejudice to the defendants asserting the defense of the statute of frauds in the answer.
The printing firm of Kurt H. Volk, Inc. (Volk) was negotiating with the firm of Huxley House Limited with a view towards merger. When the merger was effectuated, the firm took the name of Volk & Huxley Inc. (V&H). Plaintiff, Jack Miller, was a key employee of Volk and was requested to stay on as an employee of V&H, the successor firm. He was asked to aid in inducing two other employees to remain with the successor corporation and was promised special additional compensation for his efforts. His salary, should he stay on with V& H, was also to be increased. Plaintiff was successful in persuading the two other employees to remain and he continued with the successor firm for one and one-half years after the merger.
After leaving his employment, he initiated this suit alleging in the first cause of action that he was not paid for his assistance in the negotiations effectuating the merger, nor for his efforts resulting in the key employees remaining with the firm. The second cause of action alleges the same negotiations as a basis for recovery but adds that the defendants' representations to plaintiff to induce him to act on their behalf were false and fraudulent. The additional causes of action not the subject of this appeal allege a breach of contract for failure to pay the increased annual salary as promised.
The defendants moved to dismiss the first two causes of action on the grounds that they are barred by the statute of frauds. General Obligations Law, § 5--701(10) provides Inter alia, that an agreement to compensate for the negotiation of sale or exchange of business is void unless there is a note or memorandum in writing subscribed by the party to be charged.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Papa's-June Music, Inc. v. McLean
...Wegman v. Dairylea Coop., Inc. 50 A.D.2d 108, 113, 376 N.Y.S.2d 728, 734-35 (4th Dep't.1975); Miller v. Volk & Huxley, Inc., 44 A.D.2d 810, 810, 355 N.Y.S.2d 605, 606-07 (1st Dep't.1974); PI, Inc. v. Quality Prods., Inc., 907 F.Supp. 752, 761 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); Sudul v. Computer Outsourcing S......
-
Long Island Lighting Co. v. Transamerica Delaval
...of action for fraud will not arise when the only fraud charged relates to a breach of contract." Miller v. Volk & Huxley Inc., 44 A.D.2d 810, 355 N.Y.S.2d 605, 606-07 (1st Dep't 1974). TDI argues that, by framing a claim in fraud, LILCO is improperly trying to extend the statute of limitati......
-
Brignoli v. Balch Hardy and Scheinman, Inc.
...(citing Brick in dismissing a claim of fraud as redundant with respect to breach of contract claim); Miller v. Volk & Huxley, Inc., 44 A.D.2d 810, 355 N.Y.S.2d 605 (1st Dep't 1974) (dismissing second cause of action in fraud as being redundant of contract The opinion in Brick is controlling......
-
Lieb v. American Motors Corp.
...See Iandoli v. Asiatic Petroleum Corp., 57 A.D.2d 815, 395 N.Y. S.2d 15, 15 (1st Dep't 1977); Miller v. Volk & Huxley, Inc., 44 A.D.2d 810, 355 N.Y.S.2d 605, 606-07 (1st Dep't 1974). Admittedly, the line between tort and contract is indefinite and eroding. Despite the imprecise boundary bet......