J. Laskin & Sons, Inc. v. Deitel

152 Misc. 271, 273 N.Y.S. 209, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1461
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJune 25, 1934
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 Misc. 271 (J. Laskin & Sons, Inc. v. Deitel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
J. Laskin & Sons, Inc. v. Deitel, 152 Misc. 271, 273 N.Y.S. 209, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The guaranty and the checks, even though read together, were insufficient as a memorandum under the Statute of Frauds (Pers. Prop. Law, § 31). The checks were not signed by the party to be charged and would not establish an agreement to postpone the time of payment merely because they were postdated, without parol evidence of the creditor’s acquiescence in such an arrangement. Therefore, the memorandum was insufficient for the reason that consideration was not sufficiently expressed therein. (Standard Oil Co. v. Koch, 260 N. Y. 150.)

Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements and motions granted.

All concur; present, Callahan, Frankenthaler and Shientag, JJ.

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

Related

Bateman Fuel Oil Service, Inc. v. Sklaver
6 A.D.2d 868 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 Misc. 271, 273 N.Y.S. 209, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1461, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-laskin-sons-inc-v-deitel-nyappterm-1934.