Chapman v. Roberts Numbering Machine Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chapman v. Roberts Numbering Machine Co.

3 A.D.2d 903, 162 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5376

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

DecidedMay 21, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 903 (Chapman v. Roberts Numbering Machine Co.) 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

Chapman v. Roberts Numbering Machine Co., 3 A.D.2d 903, 162 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment entered December 20, 1956, unanimously modified in accordance with the decision in appeal [from order entered Dec. 18, 1956]. Order entered December 18, 1956, unanimously modified to limit the partial summary judgment to the amount of the disbursements, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment unanimously affirmed. The issue as to the Statute of Frauds requires a denial of any summary recovery based on the contract. Furthermore, we are not willing to say on the papers for summary judgment whether plaintiffs’ claim comes within any exception to the general rule that the retainer of an attorney is terminable at will. Settle order on notice. Concur — Peek, P. J., Botein, Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

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

Judgment entered December 20, 1956, unanimously modified in accordance with the decision in appeal [from order entered Dec. 18, 1956]. Order entered December 18, 1956, unanimously modified to limit the partial summary judgment to the amount of the disbursements, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment unanimously affirmed. The issue as to the Statute of Frauds requires a denial of any summary recovery based on the contract. Furthermore, we are not willing to say on the papers for summary judgment whether plaintiffs’ claim comes within any exception to the general rule that the retainer of an attorney is terminable at will. Settle order on notice. Concur — Peek, P. J., Botein, Frank, Valente and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 903, 162 N.Y.S.2d 433, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chapman-v-roberts-numbering-machine-co-nyappdiv-1957.