Court Opinion

ID: 5739329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-12 16:39:06.601717+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:41:02.426468
License: Public Domain

In an action by a customer’s man against his stockbroker employer based upon an employment agreement, to recover a percentage of commissions earned from plaintiff’s customers, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 23, 1962, which granted plaintiff’s motion under rule 109 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to strike out as insufficient in law an affirmative defense that the alleged agreement, which provided for contingent compensation, was illegal and unenforcible because it contravened the rules of the American Stock Exchange. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. No opinion. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.