Kraham Leasing Corp. v. Kent Arms Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kraham Leasing Corp. v. Kent Arms Co.

48 A.D.2d 882, 372 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10133

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

DecidedJune 16, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 882 (Kraham Leasing Corp. v. Kent Arms Co.) 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

Kraham Leasing Corp. v. Kent Arms Co., 48 A.D.2d 882, 372 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on a contract, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 2, 1975, as (1) denied its motion for summary judgment and (2) granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a supplemental complaint alleging a second cause of action. Order modified by deleting the fourth decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision granting summary judgment to defendant as to the first cause of action pleaded in the supplemental complaint; and action severed so as to permit plaintiff to proceed separately on the second cause of action alleged in the supplemental amended complaint. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant. There is no triable issue of fact concerning the first cause of action asserted in the supplemental complaint since plaintiff unconditionally waived its right to a commission in the event the sale was not consummated (Wenger v Lefrak, 279 App Div 993, affd 305 NY 656). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on a contract, defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 2, 1975, as (1) denied its motion for summary judgment and (2) granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to serve a supplemental complaint alleging a second cause of action. Order modified by deleting the fourth decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a provision granting summary judgment to defendant as to the first cause of action pleaded in the supplemental complaint; and action severed so as to permit plaintiff to proceed separately on the second cause of action alleged in the supplemental amended complaint. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements to defendant. There is no triable issue of fact concerning the first cause of action asserted in the supplemental complaint since plaintiff unconditionally waived its right to a commission in the event the sale was not consummated (Wenger v Lefrak, 279 App Div 993, affd 305 NY 656). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 882, 372 N.Y.S.2d 970, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kraham-leasing-corp-v-kent-arms-co-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack