Kaufman v. Adams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaufman v. Adams

20 A.D.2d 635, 246 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4494

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 635 (Kaufman v. Adams) 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

Kaufman v. Adams, 20 A.D.2d 635, 246 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4494 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on October 9, 1963, denying the respective motions of the parties for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and, as so modified, is otherwise affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the defendants-respondents-appellants. The defendants, [636]*636by way of defense, assert, inter alia, that the agreement sued upon has been abandoned. The defendants’ papers contain sufficient to support their claim of abandonment and there is nothing of substance in the plaintiff’s papers to offset that contention. Accordingly, we perceive no triable issue with respect thereto. While not passing on the question it should be noted that the agreement has no provision for a date of termination and, there being no unequivocal language indicating that it was to be an agreement in perpetuity, it might well be that there must he read into the agreement a provision for termination within a reasonable time (see Mitler v. Friedeberg, 32 Misc 2d 78 and citations therein). If that be so, in the circumstances of this ease, such time has elapsed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, entered on October 9, 1963, denying the respective motions of the parties for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to the extent of granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment and, as so modified, is otherwise affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the defendants-respondents-appellants. The defendants, [636]*636by way of defense, assert, inter alia, that the agreement sued upon has been abandoned. The defendants’ papers contain sufficient to support their claim of abandonment and there is nothing of substance in the plaintiff’s papers to offset that contention. Accordingly, we perceive no triable issue with respect thereto. While not passing on the question it should be noted that the agreement has no provision for a date of termination and, there being no unequivocal language indicating that it was to be an agreement in perpetuity, it might well be that there must he read into the agreement a provision for termination within a reasonable time (see Mitler v. Friedeberg, 32 Misc 2d 78 and citations therein). If that be so, in the circumstances of this ease, such time has elapsed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 635, 246 N.Y.S.2d 276, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-adams-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack