Legal Opinion

Kay v. Frick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 15, 1924PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judgment of the County Court of Nassau county modified by reducing recovery to $105.16; and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs. We are of opinion that the testimony of plaintiff at folios 65-67 of the record established a locus pcenitentiai for the defendant, and barred plaintiff from recovering damages for wrongful discharge. (Heiferman v. Greenhut Cloak Co., 143 N. Y. Supp. 411; affd., 163 App. Div. 939; Connell v. Averill, 8 id. 524.)

Present — Kelly, P. J., Rich, Manning, Kelby and Kapper, JJ.

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Heiferman v. Greenhut Cloak Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
  2. Heiferman v. Greenhut Cloak Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1913

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Karas v. H. R. Laboratories, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946
  2. Karas v. H. R. Laboratories, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1946
  3. Teich v. Aetna Industrial Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959