Elfand v. Mussler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Elfand v. Mussler

18 A.D.2d 658, 235 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6299

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 658 (Elfand v. Mussler) 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

Elfand v. Mussler, 18 A.D.2d 658, 235 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on June 13, 1962, denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion granted, and the cross complaint dismissed, with $10 costs. This contract action was brought against the respondent George Mussler and John J. Dorr, copartners doing business as East Coast Swimming Pool Company, and the appellant Chemical Corn Exchange Bank. Respondent Mussler cross-claimed against the appellant bank, alleging that pursuant to a dealer’s agreement executed on behalf of the swimming pool company an escrow fund had been created with the bank to pay creditors of the company. The respondent therefore demanded that in the event the plaintiff was successful the bank pay the amount of the judgment from such escrow account. A partnership dissolution agreement annexed to the answer of the respondent indicates that he assigned his interest in the company to his partner in 1957, thereby relinquishing any claim to the afore-mentioned fund. No triable issue of fact remains, and the cross complaint is dismissed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on June 13, 1962, denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motion granted, and the cross complaint dismissed, with $10 costs. This contract action was brought against the respondent George Mussler and John J. Dorr, copartners doing business as East Coast Swimming Pool Company, and the appellant Chemical Corn Exchange Bank. Respondent Mussler cross-claimed against the appellant bank, alleging that pursuant to a dealer’s agreement executed on behalf of the swimming pool company an escrow fund had been created with the bank to pay creditors of the company. The respondent therefore demanded that in the event the plaintiff was successful the bank pay the amount of the judgment from such escrow account. A partnership dissolution agreement annexed to the answer of the respondent indicates that he assigned his interest in the company to his partner in 1957, thereby relinquishing any claim to the afore-mentioned fund. No triable issue of fact remains, and the cross complaint is dismissed. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 658, 235 N.Y.S.2d 82, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elfand-v-mussler-nyappdiv-1962.