Amerling v. Guilford

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amerling v. Guilford

11 A.D.2d 934, 207 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8017

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 27, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 934 (Amerling v. Guilford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amerling v. Guilford, 11 A.D.2d 934, 207 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, dated June 21, 1960, as grants defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action in the complaint on the merits, severing the first cause of action pleaded in the complaint and directing that the action proceed only as to said first cause of action, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.; McNally, J. dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to reverse the order granting summary judgment and to deny the motion. • There are present issues of fact with regard to the interpretation and construction of the assignments, and the assignor-respondent’s purpose to defeat them.

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

Order, dated June 21, 1960, as grants defendants-respondents’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action in the complaint on the merits, severing the first cause of action pleaded in the complaint and directing that the action proceed only as to said first cause of action, affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens and Eager, JJ.; McNally, J. dissents in the following memorandum: I dissent and vote to reverse the order granting summary judgment and to deny the motion. • There are present issues of fact with regard to the interpretation and construction of the assignments, and the assignor-respondent’s purpose to defeat them.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 934, 207 N.Y.S.2d 228, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8017, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amerling-v-guilford-nyappdiv-1960.