Legal Opinion

Weinstein v. Primrose Blouse Co.

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

Decided December 17, 1951PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The corporate defendant was owned and controlled solely by the individual defendant. In our opinion, the phrase “ cessation of business ” should be interpreted to mean the complete cessation by the person controlling the corporate defendant of his interest in the blouse business then conducted, and that the continuance of the same blouse business by such person or by his nominee in another legal form does not constitute the “ cessation of business ” within the meaning of the contract. Although in this action at law the individual defendant may not be held liable for breach of this employment…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Luotto v. FieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1945

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Metal Specialty Products Corp. v. Howal-Ronset Instrument Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963
  2. Ray v. Hertz Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1999

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

Powered by the Exa API