Graymount v. Schlemmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Graymount v. Schlemmer

283 A.D. 859, 130 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5534

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

DecidedApril 13, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 859 (Graymount v. Schlemmer) 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

Graymount v. Schlemmer, 283 A.D. 859, 130 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

— Orders and judgments unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements to the respondents. The plaintiff upon motion made by the defendant, Else F. Schlemmer, for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, did not disclose evidentiary facts in his answering affidavits sufficient to entitle him to a trial of the issues. The motion of the defendant, Berdon, to dismiss the second cause of action was properly granted. This cause may not stand alone without the support of the allegations of the first cause. It having been found that the first cause presents no triable issue the second cause does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Furthermore, the second cause of action alleges no acts on the part of the defendant, Berdon, that were prejudicial to plaintiff’s claimed cause of action to recover on quantum meruit as alleged only against the defendant, Schlemmer, in the first cause. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Bastow and Botein, JJ. [204 Misc. 667.] [See post, p. 1030.]

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

— Orders and judgments unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements to the respondents. The plaintiff upon motion made by the defendant, Else F. Schlemmer, for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, did not disclose evidentiary facts in his answering affidavits sufficient to entitle him to a trial of the issues. The motion of the defendant, Berdon, to dismiss the second cause of action was properly granted. This cause may not stand alone without the support of the allegations of the first cause. It having been found that the first cause presents no triable issue the second cause does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Furthermore, the second cause of action alleges no acts on the part of the defendant, Berdon, that were prejudicial to plaintiff’s claimed cause of action to recover on quantum meruit as alleged only against the defendant, Schlemmer, in the first cause. Present — Peck, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Bastow and Botein, JJ. [204 Misc. 667.] [See post, p. 1030.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 859, 130 N.Y.S.2d 156, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graymount-v-schlemmer-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack