Ben Bimberg & Co. v. Unity Coat & Apron Co.

New York Supreme Court

Ben Bimberg & Co. v. Unity Coat & Apron Co.

151 Misc. 442

DecidedMay 3, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 151 Misc. 442 (Ben Bimberg & Co. v. Unity Coat & Apron Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ben Bimberg & Co. v. Unity Coat & Apron Co., 151 Misc. 442 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Schmuck, J.

Summary judgment can only be granted in accordance with rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice. If these rules, particularly rule 113, do not fit or cover the cause, this relief cannot be granted. As amended, rule 113 permits the granting of summary judgment in certain equity actions clearly specified and unmistakably indicated. As regards an action for an accounting, subdivision 8 provides that summary judgment may be granted in an action for an accounting arising on a written contract, sealed or not sealed. Indisputably, the accounting sought by these plaintiffs does not arise or flow from a written contract. Nowhere in the complaint is the claim made that a written contract exists between the parties to this action. Rule 113 cannot, under these circumstances, afford the plaintiffs any solace.

Motion denied.

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

Schmuck, J.

Summary judgment can only be granted in accordance with rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice. If these rules, particularly rule 113, do not fit or cover the cause, this relief cannot be granted. As amended, rule 113 permits the granting of summary judgment in certain equity actions clearly specified and unmistakably indicated. As regards an action for an accounting, subdivision 8 provides that summary judgment may be granted in an action for an accounting arising on a written contract, sealed or not sealed. Indisputably, the accounting sought by these plaintiffs does not arise or flow from a written contract. Nowhere in the complaint is the claim made that a written contract exists between the parties to this action. Rule 113 cannot, under these circumstances, afford the plaintiffs any solace.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 Misc. 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ben-bimberg-co-v-unity-coat-apron-co-nysupct-1933.