Di Roma v. Chambers Drug Store, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Di Roma v. Chambers Drug Store, Inc.

262 A.D. 856, 28 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260

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

DecidedJune 9, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D. 856 (Di Roma v. Chambers Drug Store, 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

Di Roma v. Chambers Drug Store, Inc., 262 A.D. 856, 28 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action upon a promissory note, order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The execution and delivery of the note, the consideration therefor, and its nonpayment were undisputed. The burden was upon the defendants to show by affidavit or other proof such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle them to a trial of the issues. The only issue, as pleaded, was whether or not a settlement agreement had been effected. Plaintiff showed that after this agreement alleged by defendants to have been made, defendants’ attorney admitted that it had never been consummated. If the agreement was in writing that writing should have been produced, but it was not. If it was oral, it was unenforcible. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 33-a; Atterbury v. Walsh Paper Corp., 261 App. Div. 529.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action upon a promissory note, order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The execution and delivery of the note, the consideration therefor, and its nonpayment were undisputed. The burden was upon the defendants to show by affidavit or other proof such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle them to a trial of the issues. The only issue, as pleaded, was whether or not a settlement agreement had been effected. Plaintiff showed that after this agreement alleged by defendants to have been made, defendants’ attorney admitted that it had never been consummated. If the agreement was in writing that writing should have been produced, but it was not. If it was oral, it was unenforcible. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 33-a; Atterbury v. Walsh Paper Corp., 261 App. Div. 529.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D. 856, 28 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/di-roma-v-chambers-drug-store-inc-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack