E. F. Hutton & Co. v. United Apple Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

E. F. Hutton & Co. v. United Apple Sales, Inc.

39 A.D.2d 873, 333 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4250

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

DecidedJune 20, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 873 (E. F. Hutton & Co. v. United Apple Sales, 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

E. F. Hutton & Co. v. United Apple Sales, Inc., 39 A.D.2d 873, 333 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 1, 1972, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion granted. Appellant shall recover of respondent $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Defendant-respondent issued its cheek dated May 24, 1971 for $25,000 on account of the purchase of commodities contracts. Prior thereto defendant had paid approximately $82,000 thereon. The defendant stopped payment on the $25,000 check. Plaintiff was acting as broker. Defendant has failed to factually justify its failure to pay said sum. Reliance on the conclusory allegations in the complaint and affidavit of the attorney in Action No. 1 are insufficient in that they fail to supply facts in support of the alleged fraud. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Kupferman, Murphy and McNally, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 1, 1972, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion granted. Appellant shall recover of respondent $50 costs and disbursements of this appeal. Defendant-respondent issued its cheek dated May 24, 1971 for $25,000 on account of the purchase of commodities contracts. Prior thereto defendant had paid approximately $82,000 thereon. The defendant stopped payment on the $25,000 check. Plaintiff was acting as broker. Defendant has failed to factually justify its failure to pay said sum. Reliance on the conclusory allegations in the complaint and affidavit of the attorney in Action No. 1 are insufficient in that they fail to supply facts in support of the alleged fraud. Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Kupferman, Murphy and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 873, 333 N.Y.S.2d 782, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-f-hutton-co-v-united-apple-sales-inc-nyappdiv-1972.