Daley v. Castellano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Daley v. Castellano

46 A.D.2d 771, 360 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3707

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

DecidedNovember 4, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 771 (Daley v. Castellano) 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

Daley v. Castellano, 46 A.D.2d 771, 360 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia,, to declare a vendee’s lien upon certain real property, in which defendant counterclaimed to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 6, 1974, which granted defendant’s motion (1) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and (2) for partial summary judgment on the counterclaim and for assessment of damages. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. While the contents of the January 29, 1973 letter of plaintiffs’ attorney is strong evidence against plaintiffs, there are nevertheless issues of fact with respect to whether the acts of defendant’s son are binding on defendant. No affidavit was submitted by defendant’s ("Son contradicting the factual assertions contained in the affidavit of plaintiff Howard G. Daley to the effect that the son was authorized to act as his mother’s agent in the transaction in question. Under the circumstances, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins and Shapiro, JJ., concur; Martuscello and Latham, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.

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

In an action, inter alia,, to declare a vendee’s lien upon certain real property, in which defendant counterclaimed to recover damages for breach of contract, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 6, 1974, which granted defendant’s motion (1) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and (2) for partial summary judgment on the counterclaim and for assessment of damages. Order reversed, without costs, and motion denied. While the contents of the January 29, 1973 letter of plaintiffs’ attorney is strong evidence against plaintiffs, there are nevertheless issues of fact with respect to whether the acts of defendant’s son are binding on defendant. No affidavit was submitted by defendant’s ("Son contradicting the factual assertions contained in the affidavit of plaintiff Howard G. Daley to the effect that the son was authorized to act as his mother’s agent in the transaction in question. Under the circumstances, defendant’s motion for summary judgment should not have been granted. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins and Shapiro, JJ., concur; Martuscello and Latham, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 771, 360 N.Y.S.2d 480, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daley-v-castellano-nyappdiv-1974.