DiLeo v. Werb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DiLeo v. Werb

50 A.D.2d 570, 375 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12329

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

DecidedNovember 10, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 570 (DiLeo v. Werb) 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

DiLeo v. Werb, 50 A.D.2d 570, 375 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action inter alia to recover amounts due on two promissory notes, plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated April 17, 1975, which denied their motion for summary judgment, and (2) a further order of the same court, dated May 29, 1975, which granted defendants’ motion for leave to serve an amended answer. Orders affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. The time within which defendants may serve an amended answer is hereby extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. We believe that there is a question of fact as to whether the parties entered into a written contract which relieved defendants of personal liability on the notes or whether the parties performed under an oral contract to the same effect (Uniform Commercial Code, §§ 3-119, 3-601; cf. North Side Sav. Bank v Septimus, 33 AD2d 913). In view of the foregoing, we believe that Special Term properly exercised its discretion in permitting defendants to interpose an amended answer. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action inter alia to recover amounts due on two promissory notes, plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated April 17, 1975, which denied their motion for summary judgment, and (2) a further order of the same court, dated May 29, 1975, which granted defendants’ motion for leave to serve an amended answer. Orders affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. The time within which defendants may serve an amended answer is hereby extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. We believe that there is a question of fact as to whether the parties entered into a written contract which relieved defendants of personal liability on the notes or whether the parties performed under an oral contract to the same effect (Uniform Commercial Code, §§ 3-119, 3-601; cf. North Side Sav. Bank v Septimus, 33 AD2d 913). In view of the foregoing, we believe that Special Term properly exercised its discretion in permitting defendants to interpose an amended answer. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 570, 375 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dileo-v-werb-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack