Frank L. Walton Corp. v. Roto American Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frank L. Walton Corp. v. Roto American Corp.

25 A.D.2d 857, 270 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4310

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

DecidedMay 9, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 857 (Frank L. Walton Corp. v. Roto American 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

Frank L. Walton Corp. v. Roto American Corp., 25 A.D.2d 857, 270 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4310 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on two promissory notes, (1) defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 5, 1965 as, on plaintiff’s motion, dismissed defendant’s two counterclaims and (2) plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the order as denied its said motion insofar as it was for summary judgment. Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from by the respective parties, without costs. Defendant’s time to serve an amended answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. To avoid misinterpretaion of the order, we note that, in addition to the remaining defensive issue of lack of good faith, there is also present for trial the defensive issue of the authority of the corporate officer who executed and delivered the notes. That issue was raised in paragraph 8 of the answer and was not affected by the order appealed from, except insofar as it was left extant.

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover on two promissory notes, (1) defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered November 5, 1965 as, on plaintiff’s motion, dismissed defendant’s two counterclaims and (2) plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of the order as denied its said motion insofar as it was for summary judgment. Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from by the respective parties, without costs. Defendant’s time to serve an amended answer is extended until 20 days after entry of the order hereon. To avoid misinterpretaion of the order, we note that, in addition to the remaining defensive issue of lack of good faith, there is also present for trial the defensive issue of the authority of the corporate officer who executed and delivered the notes. That issue was raised in paragraph 8 of the answer and was not affected by the order appealed from, except insofar as it was left extant.

Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 857, 270 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4310, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-l-walton-corp-v-roto-american-corp-nyappdiv-1966.