Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing Co. v. Larossi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing Co. v. Larossi

11 A.D.2d 595, 200 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9953

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

DecidedMay 16, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 595 (Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing Co. v. Larossi) 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

Fitzgerald Bros. Brewing Co. v. Larossi, 11 A.D.2d 595, 200 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9953 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court which denied its motion for summary judgment. The action seeks to recover a balance due for goods sold and delivered. Defendant interposed a counterclaim for damages for breach of an oral contract. From the allegations of the answer and statements in defendant’s moving papers it sufficiently appears that defendant contends that in return for his agreement to handle and promote plaintiff’s beer, plaintiff agreed to furnish adequate beer for defendant’s business at current prices, and agreed not to terminate the distributorship except upon a notice of six months. Plaintiff denies that such an oral agreement was made. This clearly raises a question of fact as to the existence and the breach of the alleged contract. We agree with the court below that on the present state of the record the Statute of Frauds is not a defense. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

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

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court which denied its motion for summary judgment. The action seeks to recover a balance due for goods sold and delivered. Defendant interposed a counterclaim for damages for breach of an oral contract. From the allegations of the answer and statements in defendant’s moving papers it sufficiently appears that defendant contends that in return for his agreement to handle and promote plaintiff’s beer, plaintiff agreed to furnish adequate beer for defendant’s business at current prices, and agreed not to terminate the distributorship except upon a notice of six months. Plaintiff denies that such an oral agreement was made. This clearly raises a question of fact as to the existence and the breach of the alleged contract. We agree with the court below that on the present state of the record the Statute of Frauds is not a defense. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 595, 200 N.Y.S.2d 449, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9953, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-bros-brewing-co-v-larossi-nyappdiv-1960.