Butler v. Mercantile Arcade Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Butler v. Mercantile Arcade Realty Corp.

243 A.D. 60, 276 N.Y.S. 190, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5483

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

DecidedDecember 24, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 60 (Butler v. Mercantile Arcade Realty 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

Butler v. Mercantile Arcade Realty Corp., 243 A.D. 60, 276 N.Y.S. 190, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Even if we assume that plaintiff is bound by the contract of January 12, 1933, between Halsey, Stuart & Co., S. W. Straus & Co., Stroud & Co., and A. C. Blumenthal, yet she would not be precluded from maintaining this action. The [61]*61parties to that contract did not agree to abstain from instituting any action on the coupons, but expressly reserved the right to take such action as might be deemed advisable. Since no issue of fact was presented by the affidavits, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

The order denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. The order granting the defendant’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer should be reversed and the motion denied.

Present — Finch, P. J., Merbell, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. Order granting defendant’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer reversed and motion denied.

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

Per Curiam.

Even if we assume that plaintiff is bound by the contract of January 12, 1933, between Halsey, Stuart & Co., S. W. Straus & Co., Stroud & Co., and A. C. Blumenthal, yet she would not be precluded from maintaining this action. The [61]*61parties to that contract did not agree to abstain from instituting any action on the coupons, but expressly reserved the right to take such action as might be deemed advisable. Since no issue of fact was presented by the affidavits, the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

The order denying the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. The order granting the defendant’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer should be reversed and the motion denied.

Present — Finch, P. J., Merbell, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.

Order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion granted. Order granting defendant’s motion for leave to serve an amended answer reversed and motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 60, 276 N.Y.S. 190, 1934 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/butler-v-mercantile-arcade-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1934.