Case Name: Meyer Weill, Respondent, v. Goodman, Shirt Waists, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-02
Citations: 102 Misc. 524
Docket Number: 
Parties: Meyer Weill, Respondent, v. Goodman, Shirt Waists, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 102
Pages: 524–527

Head Matter:
Meyer Weill, Respondent, v. Goodman, Shirt Waists, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
February, 1918.)
Services — stipulatéd price for — contracts — evidence — damages.
Where plaintiff employed by defendant to audit and supervise its books was permitted so to do until the expiration of the contract of employment his claim for the agreed compensation cannot be defeated, even though he performs the work unskillfully, except by allegation and proof of damages equal to the stipulated price for his services.
Finch, J., dissents.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, borough of The Bronx, second district, entered in favor of the plaintiff after a trial before the court without a jury.
Bloomberg & Bloomberg (H. A. Bloomberg, of counsel), for appellant.
Levy & Nemerov (Nathaniel Levy and Joseph Nemerov, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Lehman, J.
The plaintiff was employed to audit and supervise the account books of the defendant for one year. It is undisputed that the plaintiff served the full year and kept the books for the defendant without any objection by defendant. He was not discharged by the defendant but left voluntarily and the defendant then refused to pay him the stipulated amount for his services claiming that the services had not been properly performed. The trial justice found that the services had been unskillfully and improperly performed but gave judgment in favor of the plaintiff. It seems to me that this judgment is entirely correct. The defendant had a right to discharge the plaintiff because of his unskillful work but retained him and permitted him to do the work until the end of the term. If the plaintiff's services were unskillfully performed the defendant had a right to counterclaim for consequent damages, but since the contract called for continuous service on the part of the plaintiff and the plaintiff performed these services, even though unskillfully, and was guilty of no willfulbreach of the contract, of no dishonesty or unfaithfulness to his employer and the defendant accepted the plaintiff's services I do not think that it can defeat the plaintiff's cause of action except by alleging and proving a counterclaim for damages equal to the stipulated price for the services.
Judgment should therefore be affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs.
Weeks, J., concurs.