Karnal v. Horovitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karnal v. Horovitz

272 A.D.2d 796

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

DecidedMay 16, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 796 (Karnal v. Horovitz) 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

Karnal v. Horovitz, 272 A.D.2d 796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The written memorandum sufficiently identifies defendant Horovitz as vendor (cf. Lerand Corporation v. Meltzer, 267 N. Y. 343; Irvmor Corp. v. Rodewald, 253 N. Y. 472) to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds (Real Property Law, § 259). It is open to plaintiff under the cases cited to plead that Horovitz acted for the corporate defendant, 49 West 72nd Street Corp., as undisclosed principal, without specifying whether the agency was in writing. The corporate defendant is not entitled to a dismissal of the complaint on motion based on affidavits on the theory that Horovitz was not authorized in writing to sign the contract of sale in its behalf, inasmuch as the burden of proving absence of written authority on this motion is on said defendant (Matthews v. Matthews, 154 N. Y. 288), and the proof that no such writing existed comes from the affidavit of the attorney for the corporate defendant itself. Manifestly he could have no personal knowledge on the subject and his credibility, in any event, is for the trier of the fact (Canajoharie National Bank v. Diefendorf, 123 N. Y. 191). This renders a decision unnecessary concerning whether defendant corporation would be estopped to deny the existence of written authority in Horovitz if he is the sole stockholder as alleged in the complaint.

The order, so far as appealed from, should be affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent, with leave to the defendant-appellant to answer within ten days after service of the order to be entered herein, on payment of said costs.

Martin, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Peck, and Van Voorhis, JJ., concur.

Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant-appellant to answer within ten days after service of the order, with notice of entry thereof, on payment of said costs. [187 Misc. 851.]

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

Per Curiam.

The written memorandum sufficiently identifies defendant Horovitz as vendor (cf. Lerand Corporation v. Meltzer, 267 N. Y. 343; Irvmor Corp. v. Rodewald, 253 N. Y. 472) to satisfy the requirements of the Statute of Frauds (Real Property Law, § 259). It is open to plaintiff under the cases cited to plead that Horovitz acted for the corporate defendant, 49 West 72nd Street Corp., as undisclosed principal, without specifying whether the agency was in writing. The corporate defendant is not entitled to a dismissal of the complaint on motion based on affidavits on the theory that Horovitz was not authorized in writing to sign the contract of sale in its behalf, inasmuch as the burden of proving absence of written authority on this motion is on said defendant (Matthews v. Matthews, 154 N. Y. 288), and the proof that no such writing existed comes from the affidavit of the attorney for the corporate defendant itself. Manifestly he could have no personal knowledge on the subject and his credibility, in any event, is for the trier of the fact (Canajoharie National Bank v. Diefendorf, 123 N. Y. 191). This renders a decision unnecessary concerning whether defendant corporation would be estopped to deny the existence of written authority in Horovitz if he is the sole stockholder as alleged in the complaint.

The order, so far as appealed from, should be affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent, with leave to the defendant-appellant to answer within ten days after service of the order to be entered herein, on payment of said costs.

Martin, P. J., Cohn, Callahan, Peck, and Van Voorhis, JJ., concur.

Order, so far as appealed from, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant-appellant to answer within ten days after service of the order, with notice of entry thereof, on payment of said costs. [187 Misc. 851.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karnal-v-horovitz-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack