Barrett v. Jacobs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barrett v. Jacobs

231 A.D. 745

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D. 745 (Barrett v. Jacobs) 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

Barrett v. Jacobs, 231 A.D. 745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. No issues of fact exist which are determinative of this litigation. Such issues of fact as appear in the record concern matters which have no legal significance in view of the existence of the undisputed controlling facts which appear in the record. The issue is, therefore, purely one of law and reveals a situation where the plaintiffs have earned and have become entitled to their brokerage under the terms of the instrument of June 11, 1929, as accepted by the defendant. Rich, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Kapper, J., dissent, being of opinion that the papers show that there is a question of fact to be tried.

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

Order denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. No issues of fact exist which are determinative of this litigation. Such issues of fact as appear in the record concern matters which have no legal significance in view of the existence of the undisputed controlling facts which appear in the record. The issue is, therefore, purely one of law and reveals a situation where the plaintiffs have earned and have become entitled to their brokerage under the terms of the instrument of June 11, 1929, as accepted by the defendant. Rich, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Kapper, J., dissent, being of opinion that the papers show that there is a question of fact to be tried.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D. 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrett-v-jacobs-nyappdiv-1930.