Case ID: misc2d_23/html/0919-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rhyissa Van Raas, Respondent, v. Rosenbaum-Grinell, Inc., Appellant.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    February 4, 1960.
    
      Simon S. Katz for appellant. Monroe J. Winsten and Albert A. Jurón for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

Plaintiff was not entitled to recover the item of $37.50 for advertising costs for a new position, since, in any event, same might have been incurred in advertising for a new position when her employment terminated at the end of the stated season, in December.

The judgment should be modified by reducing the recovery to the sum of $780, with interest and costs thereon and as modified affirmed, with $25 costs to plaintiff-respondent.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Judgment modified, etc.