Exxon Corp. v. Strum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Exxon Corp. v. Strum

68 A.D.2d 806, 413 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10991

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 68 A.D.2d 806 (Exxon Corp. v. Strum) 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

Exxon Corp. v. Strum, 68 A.D.2d 806, 413 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 2, 1978, to the extent appealed from, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements, with leave to defendant to serve an amended answer asserting the defense of release. Any such answer is to be served within 20 days of service upon defendant of a copy of the order entered hereon with notice of entry. There is here involved an issue of credibility which we are not able to determine on the papers submitted on this motion for summary judgment. Nonetheless, defendant’s presentation is sufficient to warrant the grant of leave to amend to allege the defense of release, the defense which defeated plaintiffs motion. (See Cushman & Wakefield v John David, Inc., 25 AD2d 133, 135.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Fein, Markewich and Bloom, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered October 2, 1978, to the extent appealed from, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements, with leave to defendant to serve an amended answer asserting the defense of release. Any such answer is to be served within 20 days of service upon defendant of a copy of the order entered hereon with notice of entry. There is here involved an issue of credibility which we are not able to determine on the papers submitted on this motion for summary judgment. Nonetheless, defendant’s presentation is sufficient to warrant the grant of leave to amend to allege the defense of release, the defense which defeated plaintiffs motion. (See Cushman & Wakefield v John David, Inc., 25 AD2d 133, 135.) Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Evans, Fein, Markewich and Bloom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 A.D.2d 806, 413 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/exxon-corp-v-strum-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack