Case ID: ad_279/html/1082-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Smith Bros. Plumbing Co., Plaintiff, v. Engine Air Service, Inc., Appellant; Monroe Miller, Respondent, et al., Defendants.
   The County Court had jurisdiction to try respondent’s claim (Civ. Prac. Act, § 69). The facts established that respondent did not fully perform the employment agreement, in that the commitment procured was not unconditional and was not in accordance with the mortgage loan described in the employment agreement. Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Schmidt, JJ., concur. [See 280 App. Div. 806.]