C. K. Pistell & Co. v. Aetna Securities Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

C. K. Pistell & Co. v. Aetna Securities Corp.

13 Misc. 2d 471, 177 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3110

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 17, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Misc. 2d 471 (C. K. Pistell & Co. v. Aetna Securities Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

C. K. Pistell & Co. v. Aetna Securities Corp., 13 Misc. 2d 471, 177 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Though the order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, on which no judgment was entered, is not appealable without permission (N. Y. City Mun. Ct. Code, § 154), its merits may nevertheless be considered by us because of the provision of rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, allowing the court, on a motion made under that rule, to grant judgment to the adverse party even in the absence of a cross motion therefor. We have therefore considered the propriety of the granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In our opinion there are triable issues, and were the order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant properly before us, we would be constrained to reverse it. However, because of its nonappealability without permission, the appeal from that order is dismissed.

On plaintiff’s appeal, the order denying its motion for summary judgment should be affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Though the order granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, on which no judgment was entered, is not appealable without permission (N. Y. City Mun. Ct. Code, § 154), its merits may nevertheless be considered by us because of the provision of rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, allowing the court, on a motion made under that rule, to grant judgment to the adverse party even in the absence of a cross motion therefor. We have therefore considered the propriety of the granting of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In our opinion there are triable issues, and were the order granting summary judgment in favor of defendant properly before us, we would be constrained to reverse it. However, because of its nonappealability without permission, the appeal from that order is dismissed.

On plaintiff’s appeal, the order denying its motion for summary judgment should be affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Misc. 2d 471, 177 N.Y.S.2d 68, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/c-k-pistell-co-v-aetna-securities-corp-nyappterm-1958.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack