Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ESTERCES & ASSOCIATES, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. COASTAL COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Julius Birnbaum, Special Referee), entered September 20, 1999, in favor of plaintiff advertising salesperson and against defendant magazine publisher in the amount of $73,487.67, inclusive of interest, costs and disbursements, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
A fair interpretation of the evidence supports the Special Referee's finding that defendant did not have good cause to terminate its one-year commission agreement with plaintiff (see, Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl., 80 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 591 N.Y.S.2d 978, 606 N.E.2d 1369), and that plaintiff is therefore entitled to unpaid commissions. As to whether there are any unpaid commissions, defendant relies on a “pay-when-paid” provision in the subject agreement, under which defendant was to pay plaintiff a commission for making a sale of advertising only if and when defendant received payment from the advertiser. The Special Referee, reasonably assuming that defendant was more likely than plaintiff to have records pertinent to defendant's receipt or nonreceipt of payments from advertisers for invoiced sales, properly made it defendant's burden to prove that the invoices were not paid rather than plaintiff's burden to prove that they were (see, Calamari and Perillo,Contracts § 11-7, at 444 [3d ed.]; II Farnsworth, Contracts § 8.2, at 398-399 [2d ed.] ). Upon defendant's failure to produce such records, the Special Referee properly drew an adverse inference against it (see, Noce v. Kaufman, 2 N.Y.2d 347, 353, 161 N.Y.S.2d 1, 141 N.E.2d 529).
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: April 13, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)