Case Name: Bernard Latiner, Appellant, v. Wonderland Amusement Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-03-13
Citations: 161 A.D. 554
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bernard Latiner, Appellant, v. Wonderland Amusement Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 161
Pages: 554–555

Head Matter:
Bernard Latiner, Appellant, v. Wonderland Amusement Company, Respondent.
First Department,
March 13, 1914.
Corporation — authority of treasurer to make contracts of employment — prima facie evidence of authority.
In an action against a corporation for breach of an oral contract of employment alleged to have been made on defendant’s behalf by its treasurer, the fact that the defendant accepted and paid for plaintiff’s services for one week is sufficient prima facie evidence of the treasurer’s authority to bind the defendant by the contract.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Bernard Latiner, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 10th day of November, 1913, upon the dismissal of the complaint by direction of the court at the close of plaintiff’s case.
Eugene I. Yuells, for the appellant.
Jerome Wilzin, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
Plaintiff sued for damages for breach of a contract of employment. The alleged contract was oral and was made, on defendant's behalf, by Burlinghoff, its treasurer. After one week's service, for which he was paid, plaintiff was discharged. The complaint was dismissed for lack of proof that Burlinghoff had authority to bind defendant by a contract running for so long a period as the one sought to be established. We think the facts proved made out a prima facie case. Whether or no the treasurer has or has not power to enter into ordinary contracts affecting the usual business of the corporation, blit not necessarily pertaining to its finances, it is not now necessary to determine. In Parmelee v. Associated Physicians, etc. (9 Misc. Rep. 458) the report fails to show whether the action was for wages or for damages for unlawful discharge, but. the opinion seems to have been based on the assumption that prima facie a treasurer has power to enter into ordinary contracts of employment. Here the evidence showed that- the defendant accepted and paid for plaintiff's services for one week, and this, we think, was sufficient prima facie evidence of Burlinghoff's authority to bind defendant by the contract alleged. (Phillips v. Campbell, 43 N. Y. 271, 272; Traitel Marble Co. v. Brown Brothers, Inc., 159 App. Div. 485.)
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ.
Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event. Order to be settled on notice.