De Groes v. De Groes

17 A.D.2d 930, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7007
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 20, 1962·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

De Groes v. De Groes, 17 A.D.2d 930, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

17 A.D.2d 930 (De Groes v. De Groes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marshall-Schule Associates, Inc. v. Goldman
137 Misc. 2d 1024 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 1987)
Bouchard v. Savoca
129 Misc. 2d 506 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Bankers Trust Co. of Albany, N. A.
110 Misc. 2d 525 (New York Supreme Court, 1981)
Allen v. Aetna Insurance
54 A.D.2d 1072 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)