Cohen v. Pannia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohen v. Pannia

7 A.D.2d 886, 181 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10289

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1959

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.2d 886 (Cohen v. Pannia) 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

Cohen v. Pannia, 7 A.D.2d 886, 181 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10289 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of Onondaga County Court and order of Syracuse Municipal Court reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: The affidavits submitted on the motion for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice establish the second cause of action alleged in plaintiff’s complaint for an account stated sufficiently to entitle the plaintiff to judgment. (See Rodkinson v. Haecker, 248 N. Y. 480, 485.) The opposing affidavit made by defendants’ attorney is not based upon personal knowledge, but on hearsay and must therefore be disregarded. (See City Sav. Bank of Brooklyn v. Torro, 253 App. Div. 748; Favole v. Gallo, 263 App. Div. 729; Buffalo Gen. Hosp. v. Suppa, 257 App. Div. 1030.) All concur. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court affirming an order of Syracuse Municipal Court which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.) Present—MeCurn, P. J., Williams, Bastow, Goldman and Halpern, JJ.

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

Order of Onondaga County Court and order of Syracuse Municipal Court reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: The affidavits submitted on the motion for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice establish the second cause of action alleged in plaintiff’s complaint for an account stated sufficiently to entitle the plaintiff to judgment. (See Rodkinson v. Haecker, 248 N. Y. 480, 485.) The opposing affidavit made by defendants’ attorney is not based upon personal knowledge, but on hearsay and must therefore be disregarded. (See City Sav. Bank of Brooklyn v. Torro, 253 App. Div. 748; Favole v. Gallo, 263 App. Div. 729; Buffalo Gen. Hosp. v. Suppa, 257 App. Div. 1030.) All concur. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court affirming an order of Syracuse Municipal Court which denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.) Present—MeCurn, P. J., Williams, Bastow, Goldman and Halpern, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 886, 181 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohen-v-pannia-nyappdiv-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack