Katz v. Carrols Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Katz v. Carrols Development Corp.

53 A.D.2d 623, 385 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13323

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

DecidedJune 7, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 623 (Katz v. Carrols Development Corp.) 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

Katz v. Carrols Development Corp., 53 A.D.2d 623, 385 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia to recover rent due under a written lease, defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 17, 1975, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination denying their motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellants’ sole contention is that they were entitled to summary judgment on the first cause of action. We disagree. That cause [624]*624raises issues of fact which require a trial. Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia to recover rent due under a written lease, defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated October 17, 1975, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination denying their motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellants’ sole contention is that they were entitled to summary judgment on the first cause of action. We disagree. That cause [624]*624raises issues of fact which require a trial. Latham, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani, Rabin and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 623, 385 N.Y.S.2d 509, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katz-v-carrols-development-corp-nyappdiv-1976.