Pernet v. Peabody Engineering Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Memorandum by the Court. 'The motion, made pursuant to rule 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7) of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, was addressed solely to the sufficiency of the complaint insofar as it purports to state a cause of action to recover damages in connection with the termination of the plaintiff’s employment by Power Bilt Corporation (herein referred to as “Power Bilt 2nd”). Special Term held that the complaint sufficiently stated a cause of action on theory of breach of defendant’s obligation to act in good faith and do nothing that would destroy one of the considerations underlying all…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kirke La Shelle Co. v. Paul Armstrong Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1933
- Genet v. President of the Delaware & Hudson Canal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Goldberg 168-05 Corp. v. LevyNew York Supreme Court · 1938
- Columbus Trust Co. v. MoshierNew York Supreme Court · 1906
- Mason v. Standard Distilling & Distributing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Murphy v. American Home Products Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1987
- Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. CampbellSupreme Court of Alabama · 1987
- Wieder v. SkalaNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
- Geler v. National Westminster Bank USADistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.