Breakey v. Lake Placid Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
As to the first cause of action, defendant’s letter of November 16, 1945, when read in conjunction with its letter of November 9,1945, might be construed as evidencing a definite period of plaintiff’s employment for an entire year commencing December 29, 1945, sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds. (Marks v. Cowdin, 226 N. Y. 138,145.) In any event, if there be any ambiguity as to the intention of the parties expressed in the writings, parol evidence would in such circumstances be admissible to resolve it. (Stulsaft v. Mercer Tube & Mfg. Co., *589288 N. Y. 255; Flash v. Rossiter, 116…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Marks v. . CowdinNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Newhall v. . AppletonNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Stulsaft v. Mercer Tube & Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Brauer v. . Oceanic Steam Navigation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1904
- Lipson v. Bradford Dyeing Ass'n of U. S. A.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1943
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.