Legal Opinion

Bell-Hi Co. v. Pratt

Rochester City Court

Decided April 6, 1973PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtCarl R. 'Scacchetti, J.

In the instant action, the plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant moneys allegedly due and owing it. This contended obligation is set out in the plaintiff’s moving papers as a promissory note, a copy of which is annexed and marked “ Exhibit A ”.

There is no dispute that the underlying obligation was cash paid to the defendant as a possible draw against commissions *357which the defendant may have earned as a salesman while in the employ of the plaintiff.

The argument by the defendant is that the money is nonrecoverable because it is in fact a draw against commissions and cites cases for…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. North-Western Mutual Life Insurance v. MooneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
  2. Carter v. BradleeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
  3. Kleinfeld v. Roburn Agencies, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946
  4. Carter v. BradleeNew York Court of Appeals · 1936
  5. Pease Piano Co. v. TaylorAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Boutique Industries, Inc. v. SobelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API