Prussiano v. Sunrise Plastering Corp.
| Decision Date | 23 May 1955 |
| Parties | Joseph B. PRUSSIANO, Respondent, v. SUNRISE PLASTERING CORP., and Salvatore A. Rizza, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
George J. Rudnick, Brooklyn, for appellant.
Benjamin Natter, New York City, Gustave Menit, New York City, of counsel, for respondent.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and WENZEL, MacCRATE, SCHMIDT and UGHETTA, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In this action on defendants' alleged oral agreement to pay plaintiff 5% of the amount of each contract for plastering work that he would procure for them, defendants appeal from a judgment in plaintiff's favor entered upon the verdict of a jury.
Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Under the agreement, each time that defendants elected to accept a proposed contract brought to them by plaintiff there arose a separate obligation on their part to pay him the agreed commission. Neither party, however, was obligated to do anything to bring about another such contract. Since the agreement was one at will and for no definite or specific time and thus by 'its terms' did not necessarily extend beyond one year from the time of its making, the Statute of Frauds is inapplicable. Personal Property Law, § 31, subd. 1; Nat Nal Service Stations v. Wolf, 304 N.Y. 332, 107 N.E.2d 473; Rathbone v. Mion, 282 App.Div. 797, 122 N.Y.S.2d 597.
The jury awarded plaintiff a sum equal to the amount of commissions his proof showed he had earned, less payments he received for services which included his securing of the contracts. Therefore, it may not be said that the verdict was a compromise.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maher v. Isthmian Steamship Company
...the evidence. Kraft Hat Mfg. Corp. v. Universal Carloading & Distributing Co., City Ct., 7 N.Y.S.2d 679; Prussiano v. Sunrise Plastering Corp., 285 App.Div. 1182, 141 N.Y.S.2d 277, reargument denied 286 App.Div. 878, 143 N.Y.S.2d 818, appeal denied 286 App.Div. 969, 146 N.Y.S.2d 476; Feinbl......
-
Vanacore v. Vanco Sales LLC
...agreement not barred by section 5-701(a)(1) because it "was capable of performance within a year"); Prussiano v. Sunrise Plastering Corp., 141 N.Y.S.2d 277, 278 (2d Dep't 1955) (statute of frauds did not bar agreement because it was "at will and for no definite or specific time and thus by ......
-
Prussiano v. Sunrise Plastering Corp.
...June 27, 1955. Motion referred to the court that rendered the decision. Motion for reargument denied, without costs. 285 App.Div. 1182, 141 N.Y.S.2d 277. ...
-
Prussiano v. Sunrise Plastering Corp.
...of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department. Sept. 19, 1955. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. 285 App.Div. 1182, 141 N.Y.S.2d 277. ...