De Groes v. De Groes
This text of 17 A.D.2d 930 (De Groes v. De Groes) 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.
Opinion
Order, entered on April 17, 1962, granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, and the judgment entered on said order on April 25, 1962, is likewise affirmed, with costs to the respondent. We do not reach the question as to whether the cases of Cohen v. Cohen (3 N Y 2d 813) and Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris (5 N Y 2d 317) are controlling. In our opinion the affidavits are insufficient to present a triable issue even on the question of the fraud alleged. Nor is there a triable issue raised with respect to the claim of coercion. In Hanrog Distr. Corp. v. Hanioti (10 Misc 2d 659, 660) Mr. Justice Shientas said that “A shadowy semblance of an issue is not enough to defeat the motion.” There is no more than that here. Concur — Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 A.D.2d 930, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-groes-v-de-groes-nyappdiv-1962.