Fraccola v. Utica Transit Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fraccola v. Utica Transit Corp.

11 A.D.2d 900, 202 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8750

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

DecidedJuly 1, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 900 (Fraccola v. Utica Transit Corp.) 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

Fraccola v. Utica Transit Corp., 11 A.D.2d 900, 202 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Order dated March 22, 1958, and judgment entered thereon, and order dated August 19, 1959,, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and motion for summary judgment denied, with $10 costs. Memorandum: The pleadings and affidavits submitted raise a question of fact as to the intent of the parties to the labor contract as to tenure of employment. Furthermore, there is a question of fact arising from the provisions of the contract as to whether or not charges are to be presented and a hearing held. Both questions are properly for a jury’s determination rather than a summary disposition thereof on motion. (Appeal from judgment and order of Oneida Special Term dismissing plaintiff’s complaint; the order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Also, appeal from part of order of Oneida Special Term denying plaintiff’s motion for reargument of the previous motion to dismiss as to the first and third causes of action; the order modified the original decision as to the second cause of action and as to that the motion by defendant to dismiss was denied.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

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

Order dated March 22, 1958, and judgment entered thereon, and order dated August 19, 1959,, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and motion for summary judgment denied, with $10 costs. Memorandum: The pleadings and affidavits submitted raise a question of fact as to the intent of the parties to the labor contract as to tenure of employment. Furthermore, there is a question of fact arising from the provisions of the contract as to whether or not charges are to be presented and a hearing held. Both questions are properly for a jury’s determination rather than a summary disposition thereof on motion. (Appeal from judgment and order of Oneida Special Term dismissing plaintiff’s complaint; the order granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Also, appeal from part of order of Oneida Special Term denying plaintiff’s motion for reargument of the previous motion to dismiss as to the first and third causes of action; the order modified the original decision as to the second cause of action and as to that the motion by defendant to dismiss was denied.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 900, 202 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fraccola-v-utica-transit-corp-nyappdiv-1960.