Holkorn, Inc. v. Pride of Erin, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Holkorn, Inc. v. Pride of Erin, Inc.

7 A.D.2d 717, 180 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3947

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 7 A.D.2d 717 (Holkorn, Inc. v. Pride of Erin, 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

Holkorn, Inc. v. Pride of Erin, Inc., 7 A.D.2d 717, 180 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Order is unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, to the extent of limiting the examination of plaintiff, insofar as it relates to the issues raised by the allegations of the second counterclaim, to the alleged failure of plaintiff “ to offer such other evenings first to the party of the second part [defendant] before offering such evenings to members of the party of the second part individually.” The above-quoted portion is the language of the contract between the parties, is explicitly pleaded and therefore serves to narrow the scope of the examination under defendant’s further allegation that plaintiff rented the hall to “ divers other persons.” The second counterclaim must depend on defendant’s proof that in violation of contract plaintiff rented the premises to individual members of defendant corporation. The order, as so modified, is affirmed. Settle order. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order is unanimously modified on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, to the extent of limiting the examination of plaintiff, insofar as it relates to the issues raised by the allegations of the second counterclaim, to the alleged failure of plaintiff “ to offer such other evenings first to the party of the second part [defendant] before offering such evenings to members of the party of the second part individually.” The above-quoted portion is the language of the contract between the parties, is explicitly pleaded and therefore serves to narrow the scope of the examination under defendant’s further allegation that plaintiff rented the hall to “ divers other persons.” The second counterclaim must depend on defendant’s proof that in violation of contract plaintiff rented the premises to individual members of defendant corporation. The order, as so modified, is affirmed. Settle order. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, M. M. Frank and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.2d 717, 180 N.Y.S.2d 62, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holkorn-inc-v-pride-of-erin-inc-nyappdiv-1958.