Legal Opinion

Phil Kriegel Associates, Inc. v. M. Lahm Knitting Mill, Inc.

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

Decided January 23, 1992PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

There is no real dispute that the commission agreement in issue commenced in 1977. Uncertainty as to whether this partially oral and partially written agreement included a provision concerning exclusivity does not render it unenforceable. Exclusivity of representation is not an essential term in a sales representative’s agreement. The agreement, specific with respect to the essential terms of commission, was not a mere agreement to agree (cf., Paladino v Brovitz, 170 AD2d 958). Thus, this enforceable contract commencing as it did in 1977, is not subject to Labor Law §§ 191-a, 191-b and 191-c,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cady v. County of BroomeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
  2. First Energy Leasing Corp. v. Attorney-GeneralNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. Paladino v. BrovitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. AHA Sales, Inc. v. Creative Bath Products, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
  2. Cleveland Wrecking Co. v. Hercules Construction Corp.District Court, E.D. New York · 1998
  3. Mendler v. Federal InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API