Hurwitz v. W. H. Sadlier, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hurwitz v. W. H. Sadlier, Inc.

50 A.D.2d 587, 375 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12368

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 587 (Hurwitz v. W. H. Sadlier, 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

Hurwitz v. W. H. Sadlier, Inc., 50 A.D.2d 587, 375 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12368 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to recover royalties due under contracts, defendants Oxford Book Company, Inc., and Keystone Education Press, Inc., appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 6, 1975, as, on their motion for summary judgment, denied such relief as to plaintiff’s second cause of action (the order denied the motion as to them in its entirety). Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The contract language is ambiguous and plaintiff’s affidavits raise factual issues concerning the intent of the parties in executing the contracts. Gulotta, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Latham and Hargett, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to recover royalties due under contracts, defendants Oxford Book Company, Inc., and Keystone Education Press, Inc., appeal, as limited by their briefs, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 6, 1975, as, on their motion for summary judgment, denied such relief as to plaintiff’s second cause of action (the order denied the motion as to them in its entirety). Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. The contract language is ambiguous and plaintiff’s affidavits raise factual issues concerning the intent of the parties in executing the contracts. Gulotta, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Latham and Hargett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 587, 375 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurwitz-v-w-h-sadlier-inc-nyappdiv-1975.