Bein v. Slater

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bein v. Slater

269 A.D. 764, 55 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3680

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

DecidedMay 4, 1945

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D. 764 (Bein v. Slater) 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

Bein v. Slater, 269 A.D. 764, 55 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Determination of the Appellate Term affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Glennon and Untermyer, JJ., concur for affirmance upon the ground that the Appellate Term correctly held that the defense of cancelation was available to the defendants (Scott v. Engineering News Publishing Co., 47 App. Div. 558; Gilbert v. Quinlan, 59 Hun 508, 511; Worley v. Calculagraph Co., 87 Misc. 309; Note, 23 A. L. R. 451) and upon the further ground that the defense of the Statute of Frauds was likewise available to them (Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. Neiberg Realty Corp., 250 N. Y. 304, and cases there cited). Dore, J., concurs for affirmance upon the ground first stated; Martin, P. J., and Townley, J., dissent and vote to reverse the determination of the Appellate Term and the order of the City Court and grant the motion. [See post, p. 818.]

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

Determination of the Appellate Term affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Untermyer and Dore, JJ.; Glennon and Untermyer, JJ., concur for affirmance upon the ground that the Appellate Term correctly held that the defense of cancelation was available to the defendants (Scott v. Engineering News Publishing Co., 47 App. Div. 558; Gilbert v. Quinlan, 59 Hun 508, 511; Worley v. Calculagraph Co., 87 Misc. 309; Note, 23 A. L. R. 451) and upon the further ground that the defense of the Statute of Frauds was likewise available to them (Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. Neiberg Realty Corp., 250 N. Y. 304, and cases there cited). Dore, J., concurs for affirmance upon the ground first stated; Martin, P. J., and Townley, J., dissent and vote to reverse the determination of the Appellate Term and the order of the City Court and grant the motion. [See post, p. 818.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 764, 55 N.Y.S.2d 118, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bein-v-slater-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack