Cantor v. Loewe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cantor v. Loewe

22 A.D.2d 668, 253 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3019

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 22 A.D.2d 668 (Cantor v. Loewe) 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

Cantor v. Loewe, 22 A.D.2d 668, 253 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3019 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on November 18, 1963, denying summary judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion granted for the relief demanded in the complaint, with $10 costs. The action is on two promissory notes given in payment for the sale of stock. Execution and delivery are admitted. The defense asserted is an oral agreement that plaintiff would resign as an officer and would procure the [669]*669resignation of another officer. This was not a condition of the sale or delivery of 'the notes. Being at best a condition subsequent, it is not provable by parol (Jamestown Business Coll. Assn. v. Allen, 172 N. Y. 291; Rhinock v. Simms, 226 App. Div. 313, affd. 253 N. Y. 602; Solomon v. Van De Maele, 21 A D 2d 396). No triable issue is raised. Concur—Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

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

Order, entered on November 18, 1963, denying summary judgment unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant, and motion granted for the relief demanded in the complaint, with $10 costs. The action is on two promissory notes given in payment for the sale of stock. Execution and delivery are admitted. The defense asserted is an oral agreement that plaintiff would resign as an officer and would procure the [669]*669resignation of another officer. This was not a condition of the sale or delivery of 'the notes. Being at best a condition subsequent, it is not provable by parol (Jamestown Business Coll. Assn. v. Allen, 172 N. Y. 291; Rhinock v. Simms, 226 App. Div. 313, affd. 253 N. Y. 602; Solomon v. Van De Maele, 21 A D 2d 396). No triable issue is raised. Concur—Rabin, J. P., Valente, Stevens, Steuer and Staley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.2d 668, 253 N.Y.S.2d 340, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cantor-v-loewe-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack