Heisler v. Meyerowich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Heisler v. Meyerowich

87 A.D.2d 809, 450 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16257

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

DecidedApril 5, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 87 A.D.2d 809 (Heisler v. Meyerowich) 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

Heisler v. Meyerowich, 87 A.D.2d 809, 450 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16257 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover on a written guarantee, defendants appeal (1) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated January 6, 1981, as granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and directed that plaintiffs have judgment against defendants, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon on January 14, 1981. Appeal from the order dismissed (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment reversed, on the law, order vacated insofar as it granted plaintiffs’ 'motion for summary judgment and directed entry of judgment in their favor, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendants are awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. Based upon the record before this court, there exists a material and triable issue of fact as to the extent of the guarantee, and therefore, summary judgment should have been denied. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover on a written guarantee, defendants appeal (1) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Held, J.), dated January 6, 1981, as granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and directed that plaintiffs have judgment against defendants, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon on January 14, 1981. Appeal from the order dismissed (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). Judgment reversed, on the law, order vacated insofar as it granted plaintiffs’ 'motion for summary judgment and directed entry of judgment in their favor, and plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is denied. Defendants are awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. Based upon the record before this court, there exists a material and triable issue of fact as to the extent of the guarantee, and therefore, summary judgment should have been denied. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

87 A.D.2d 809, 450 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16257, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heisler-v-meyerowich-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack