Gorman v. Grodensky

498 N.Y.S.2d 249 (1985)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
G
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Gorman v. Grodensky

New York Supreme Court
498 N.Y.S.2d 249 (1985)

  • Written by Casey Cohen, JD

Facts

Attorneys Maurice Grodensky (defendant) and David LeSchack were partners at their law firm, LeSchack & Grodensky, P.C. (L&G). L&G operated a business known as the Collection Division, which collected the debts of clients who owed L&G fees. Herman Gorman (plaintiff) and Grodensky entered into an agreement stating that Gorman would be the Collection Division’s office manager in exchange for a weekly salary and one-third of the Collection Division’s net profits. Gorman was not an attorney. After LeSchack died, Gorman and Grodensky amended the original agreement to state that the net profits of the Collection Division would be divided equally between them, with 50 percent going to Gorman and 50 percent going to Grodensky. Gorman was later terminated. Gorman filed a complaint against Grodensky, alleging that Grodensky had failed to pay under the amended agreement. Gorman filed a motion for summary judgment, and Grodensky filed a cross-motion to dismiss the complaint.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Cahn, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Legal Ethics

Key Terms