G. Giospi Co. v. Kaufman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

G. Giospi Co. v. Kaufman

30 A.D.2d 950, 294 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3188

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 950 (G. Giospi Co. v. Kaufman) 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

G. Giospi Co. v. Kaufman, 30 A.D.2d 950, 294 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Summary judgment in favor of plaintiff dated November 10, 1967 and order dated November 6, 1967 denying motion for rehearing, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, to the following [951]*951extent, namely, the rehearing is granted, and on such rehearing said judgment is vacated, the motion therefor denied, and the matter remanded for pleadings, on condition that within 15 days after entry of the order hereon defendant file an undertaking in the amount of $3,500 to secure any judgment which plaintiff may recover in this action. In the event such condition is not complied with, said judgment dated November 10, 1967 is unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff. Special Term’s memorandum on the motion for summary judgment properly emphasized defendant’s failure to show that he complained about the allegedly defective condition of the goods plaintiff had sold him. The additional papers submitted on the motion for rehearing to rectify the failure were available and should have been submitted in the first instance. However, they are sufficient to raise a triable issue, and we think it appropriate to dispose of the matter as above provided. Concur— Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.

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

Summary judgment in favor of plaintiff dated November 10, 1967 and order dated November 6, 1967 denying motion for rehearing, unanimously modified, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs or disbursements, to the following [951]*951extent, namely, the rehearing is granted, and on such rehearing said judgment is vacated, the motion therefor denied, and the matter remanded for pleadings, on condition that within 15 days after entry of the order hereon defendant file an undertaking in the amount of $3,500 to secure any judgment which plaintiff may recover in this action. In the event such condition is not complied with, said judgment dated November 10, 1967 is unanimously affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiff. Special Term’s memorandum on the motion for summary judgment properly emphasized defendant’s failure to show that he complained about the allegedly defective condition of the goods plaintiff had sold him. The additional papers submitted on the motion for rehearing to rectify the failure were available and should have been submitted in the first instance. However, they are sufficient to raise a triable issue, and we think it appropriate to dispose of the matter as above provided. Concur— Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Tilzer and Rabin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 950, 294 N.Y.S.2d 481, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-giospi-co-v-kaufman-nyappdiv-1968.