Czerny v. Ralsut, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Czerny v. Ralsut, Inc.

259 A.D. 1081, 22 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8088

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 1081 (Czerny v. Ralsut, Inc.) 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

Czerny v. Ralsut, Inc., 259 A.D. 1081, 22 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8088 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Action on contract. Order of the Appellate Term affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Taylor, J., dissent, vote to reverse the order of the Appellate Term, to vacate the judgment of the Municipal Court, and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that, as a matter of law, the parties did not contemplate the making of a contract; and that what plaintiff was required to do to entitle her to a prize was not intended as consideration for a promise by defendant that she would receive the prize if her number was the one drawn. In any event, if the nature of the transaction is not determinable as a matter of law, then there was a question of fact as to the intention of the parties to be submitted to a jury. The trial court had instructed the the jury that there was a contract.

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

Action on contract. Order of the Appellate Term affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Carswell, Adel and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Taylor, J., dissent, vote to reverse the order of the Appellate Term, to vacate the judgment of the Municipal Court, and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that, as a matter of law, the parties did not contemplate the making of a contract; and that what plaintiff was required to do to entitle her to a prize was not intended as consideration for a promise by defendant that she would receive the prize if her number was the one drawn. In any event, if the nature of the transaction is not determinable as a matter of law, then there was a question of fact as to the intention of the parties to be submitted to a jury. The trial court had instructed the the jury that there was a contract.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 1081, 22 N.Y.S.2d 198, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/czerny-v-ralsut-inc-nyappdiv-1940.