Auen v. Marwill Trading Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Auen v. Marwill Trading Corp.

255 A.D. 377, 7 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4747

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 377 (Auen v. Marwill Trading Corp.) 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

Auen v. Marwill Trading Corp., 255 A.D. 377, 7 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from is correct in so far as it denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. It is incorrect to the extent that it denies the motion to strike out the first separate and distinct defense. This defense alleges that the defendant tendered the sum of $250, and that the plaintiff refused to receive the same. Such plea does not constitute a complete defense to causes of action wherein the sums demanded aggregate $13,250. The Civil Practice Act (§§ 171-173) indicates the procedure to be followed in the event of tender, and the effect of plaintiff’s acceptance or non-acceptance thereof.

The order should be modified to the extent of granting the motion to strike out the first separate and distinct defense, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Unteemyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order unanimously modified to the extent of granting the motion to strike out the first separate and distinct defense, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from is correct in so far as it denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. It is incorrect to the extent that it denies the motion to strike out the first separate and distinct defense. This defense alleges that the defendant tendered the sum of $250, and that the plaintiff refused to receive the same. Such plea does not constitute a complete defense to causes of action wherein the sums demanded aggregate $13,250. The Civil Practice Act (§§ 171-173) indicates the procedure to be followed in the event of tender, and the effect of plaintiff’s acceptance or non-acceptance thereof.

The order should be modified to the extent of granting the motion to strike out the first separate and distinct defense, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Unteemyer, Cohn and Callahan, JJ.

Order unanimously modified to the extent of granting the motion to strike out the first separate and distinct defense, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 377, 7 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auen-v-marwill-trading-corp-nyappdiv-1938.