Legal Opinion
Small v. Kronstat
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 5, 1940PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCarew, J.
The complaint alleges that for some time prior to October 21, 1940, under a written contract of employment attached to the complaint, to expire on April 25, 1945, the plaintiffs had in their employ the defendant Sigsmund Konzior, a skilled mechanic or artisan, whose craft was to fit into watch cases of various designs a transparent plastic composition resembling transparent celluloid as a crystal over the dials. The defendant Kronstat, engaged in the same business as the plaintiffs and knowing of the contract of employment between the plaintiffs and the defendant Konzior, induced him to leave…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hornstein v. PodwitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Jackson v. . StrongNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- Livingston v. BlumenthalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- Hermes v. ComptonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
- Superior Brassiere Co. v. ZimetbaumAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Ticor Title Insurance Co. Chicago Title Insurance Co. v. Kenneth C. CohenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Amory H. Bradford v. The New York Times CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
- Sterling National Bank & Trust Co. v. Merchants BankCivil Court of the City of New York · 1965
- Dobschiner v. LevyNew York Supreme Court · 1942
- Capita v. Port Washington Yacht Club, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.