Josef Weindl, Inc. v. Braverman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Josef Weindl, Inc. v. Braverman

13 Misc. 2d 435, 180 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3038

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 24, 1958

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 Misc. 2d 435 (Josef Weindl, Inc. v. Braverman) 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

Josef Weindl, Inc. v. Braverman, 13 Misc. 2d 435, 180 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff having served no reply to the counterclaim its motion for summary judgment was properly denied on that ground alone. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 272; United States Trust Co. v. Hardwood Operating Corp., 271 App. Div. 233.) The agreement upon which the counterclaim is based is not illegal merely because it is oral. An oral agreement is only unenforcible at the election of the party sought to be charged if the Statute of Frauds is pleaded as a defense and the agreement found within the ambit of such statute. (Matthews v. Matthews, 154 N. Y. 288; Flanagan v. Flanagan, 209 App. Div. 190.)

The order denying summary judgment should be affirmed, without costs, the respondent having neither appeared nor filed a brief on this appeal.

Concur — ■ Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Order affirmed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff having served no reply to the counterclaim its motion for summary judgment was properly denied on that ground alone. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 272; United States Trust Co. v. Hardwood Operating Corp., 271 App. Div. 233.) The agreement upon which the counterclaim is based is not illegal merely because it is oral. An oral agreement is only unenforcible at the election of the party sought to be charged if the Statute of Frauds is pleaded as a defense and the agreement found within the ambit of such statute. (Matthews v. Matthews, 154 N. Y. 288; Flanagan v. Flanagan, 209 App. Div. 190.)

The order denying summary judgment should be affirmed, without costs, the respondent having neither appeared nor filed a brief on this appeal.

Concur — ■ Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Misc. 2d 435, 180 N.Y.S.2d 666, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/josef-weindl-inc-v-braverman-nyappterm-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack