High v. Pritzker
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Per curiam
On the pleadings there is an issue raised as to the effect of the oral agreement. Whether the rule enunciated by this court in Cohen v. Bartgis Bros. Co. (264 App. Div. 260) and affirmed in the Court of Appeals (289 N. Y. 846) is applicable to the facts in this case can best be determined upon a trial. (Jacobson v. Jacobson, 268 App. Div. 770.)
Moreover, it would appear that the .first cause of action is for compensation for services rendered by plaintiff at defendant’s request as to a specific order of 1,000,000 writing tablets. The Statute of Frauds would be insufficient as a defense to this…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Cohen v. Bartgis Bros.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Cohen v. Bartgis Brothers CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Jacobson v. JacobsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
3Cited by7 opinions
- Nathanson v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1947
- Costantini v. Bimco Industries, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
- Lenz v. World-Wide Automobiles Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1957
- Linn v. MahlerNew York Supreme Court · 1958
- Harman v. SpiegelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1956
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.