Airflow Taxi Corp. v. C. I. T. Corp.

258 A.D. 857, 15 N.Y.S.2d 965
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 22, 1939·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Since the affidavits present triable issues of fact, particularly on the question as to whether or not the defendant ever sold the taxicabs, the motions for summary judgment were properly denied. (Dwan v. Massarene, 199 App. Div. 872; Friedman v. Universal Mercerizing Co., 238 id. 805.) The credibility of the affiants is for the jury. (Bernstein v. Kritzer, 224 App. Div. 387.) We are not required to and do not now pass upon the validity of the alleged agreement dated May 9,1938, and marked “ Exhibit B.” All concur. (The order denies defendant’s motion for summary judgment and denies plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Airflow Taxi Corp. v. C. I. T. Corp., 258 A.D. 857, 15 N.Y.S.2d 965 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

258 A.D. 857 (Airflow Taxi Corp. v. C. I. T. Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Caristo Construction Corp. v. Diners Financial Corp.
45 Misc. 2d 549 (New York Supreme Court, 1965)
Aluminum Supply Co. v. Camelio
32 Misc. 2d 292 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)
Rutgers Chevrolet Co. v. Goody
9 Misc. 2d 837 (New York Supreme Court, 1957)
Boomhower v. New York Central Railroad
273 A.D. 557 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1948)