Case Name: Joseph H. O'Brien, Appellant, v. Paul M. O'Neill, Doing Business under the Name of Paul M. O'Neill Agency and Paul M. O'Neill Private Investigating Agency, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1947-01-24
Citations: 271 A.D.2d 647
Docket Number: 
Parties: Joseph H. O’Brien, Appellant, v. Paul M. O’Neill, Doing Business under the Name of Paul M. O’Neill Agency and Paul M. O’Neill Private Investigating Agency, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 271
Pages: 647–648

Head Matter:
Joseph H. O’Brien, Appellant, v. Paul M. O’Neill, Doing Business under the Name of Paul M. O’Neill Agency and Paul M. O’Neill Private Investigating Agency, Respondent.
First Department,
January 24, 1947.
Henry Waldman of counsel (Weiss & Weiss, attorneys), for appellant.
John F. X. Finn of counsel (C. J. Pernicone with him on the brief; Lorenz, Finn & Lorenz, attorneys), for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff testified that his commissions for procuring customers for defendant's guard service were to continue to be paid for as long as business relations continued between defendant and such customers. Although the customers were war plants required by the army and the navy to be guarded, there is nothing in the record showing that the guard service which defendant furnished was to last for the duration of the war only. On the oral agreement as testified to by plaintiff, he could claim his commissions if they continued in peacetime production. It has been held that such a contract is within the Statute of Frauds (Cohen v. Bartgis Bros. Co., 264 App. Div. 260, affd. 289 N. Y. 846). The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Martin, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Peck and Van Vooehis, JJ., concur.
Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.