Haas v. Rosenblum Furs, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haas v. Rosenblum Furs, Inc.

278 A.D. 685, 103 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4356

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

DecidedMarch 20, 1951

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D. 685 (Haas v. Rosenblum Furs, Inc.) 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

Haas v. Rosenblum Furs, Inc., 278 A.D. 685, 103 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the motion for summary judgment denied. Plaintiff, who has full knowledge of the circumstances under which the trade acceptance sued upon was issued, has elected in his motion for summary judgment to rest upon a presumption of consideration without disclosing the facts, as against the lack of knowledge of those required to defend in behalf of the defendant. The question they have raised as to consideration is warranted by the records of defendant corporation and their information as to an accommodation practice between the parties. Regardless of the burden of proof, summary judgment should not be awarded on the limited showing made here. (See Woodmere Academy V. Moslcovoita, 212 App. Div. 457.) Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Cohn, Van Voorhis, Shientag and Heffeman, JJ. [See post, p. 765.]

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

Judgment and order unanimously reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the motion for summary judgment denied. Plaintiff, who has full knowledge of the circumstances under which the trade acceptance sued upon was issued, has elected in his motion for summary judgment to rest upon a presumption of consideration without disclosing the facts, as against the lack of knowledge of those required to defend in behalf of the defendant. The question they have raised as to consideration is warranted by the records of defendant corporation and their information as to an accommodation practice between the parties. Regardless of the burden of proof, summary judgment should not be awarded on the limited showing made here. (See Woodmere Academy V. Moslcovoita, 212 App. Div. 457.) Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Cohn, Van Voorhis, Shientag and Heffeman, JJ. [See post, p. 765.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 685, 103 N.Y.S.2d 388, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haas-v-rosenblum-furs-inc-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack