Kocsor v. Eastland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kocsor v. Eastland

44 A.D.2d 869, 355 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5007

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

DecidedMay 16, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 44 A.D.2d 869 (Kocsor v. Eastland) 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

Kocsor v. Eastland, 44 A.D.2d 869, 355 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5007 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 23, 1973 in Ulster County, which denied motions to dismiss the complaint. In an action for breach of warranty, fraud and conspiracy, defendants Eastland and Featherstone appeal from so much of an order at Special Term that treated .their motion to dismiss the complaint as a motion for summary judgment and denied same. Since evidentiary material was submitted by defendants and other moving parties, this procedure was proper. (CPLR 3211, subd. [c]; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, 27. Y. Civ. Prae:, par. 3211.50.) The trial court found questions of fact exist as to the legal relationship between these defendants who are a dealer in modular homes, and the owner of lands under development as a modular home community respectively. A motion for summary judgment searches the record, and from a reading of all the moving papers, it is clear a question of fact does exist as to whether defendant Featherstone was at least an agent of defendant Eastland (4 Weinstein-KornMiller, 27. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 3211.48). This issue and others arising therefrom can best be determined upon a trial. Order affirmed, without costs. Staley, Jr.,

J. P., Cooke, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term, entered August 23, 1973 in Ulster County, which denied motions to dismiss the complaint. In an action for breach of warranty, fraud and conspiracy, defendants Eastland and Featherstone appeal from so much of an order at Special Term that treated .their motion to dismiss the complaint as a motion for summary judgment and denied same. Since evidentiary material was submitted by defendants and other moving parties, this procedure was proper. (CPLR 3211, subd. [c]; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, 27. Y. Civ. Prae:, par. 3211.50.) The trial court found questions of fact exist as to the legal relationship between these defendants who are a dealer in modular homes, and the owner of lands under development as a modular home community respectively. A motion for summary judgment searches the record, and from a reading of all the moving papers, it is clear a question of fact does exist as to whether defendant Featherstone was at least an agent of defendant Eastland (4 Weinstein-KornMiller, 27. Y. Civ. Prae., par. 3211.48). This issue and others arising therefrom can best be determined upon a trial. Order affirmed, without costs. Staley, Jr.,

J. P., Cooke, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 869, 355 N.Y.S.2d 503, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kocsor-v-eastland-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

J. P., Cooke, Sweeney, Kane and Main, JJ., concur.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack