De Cesare v. Palazini

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

De Cesare v. Palazini

30 A.D.2d 995, 294 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3180

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 995 (De Cesare v. Palazini) 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

De Cesare v. Palazini, 30 A.D.2d 995, 294 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3180 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County, in favor of defendant, entered October 19,1965, upon a decision of the court after a trial without a jury. In this action to recover against defendant maker on a promissory note, appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting proof of an alteration of the instrument since defendant failed to allege the alteration as an affirmative defense in his answer. We do not agree. It is well settled that an alteration of a note may be shown under a general denial (Schwarz v. Oppold, 74 H. Y. 307; Starasvetsky v. Feldman, 208 App. Div. 792). Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

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

Aulisi, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County, in favor of defendant, entered October 19,1965, upon a decision of the court after a trial without a jury. In this action to recover against defendant maker on a promissory note, appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting proof of an alteration of the instrument since defendant failed to allege the alteration as an affirmative defense in his answer. We do not agree. It is well settled that an alteration of a note may be shown under a general denial (Schwarz v. Oppold, 74 H. Y. 307; Starasvetsky v. Feldman, 208 App. Div. 792). Judgment affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Aulisi, Staley, Jr., and Gabrielli, JJ., concur in memorandum by Aulisi, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 995, 294 N.Y.S.2d 84, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-cesare-v-palazini-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack