Louis Gendelman Rigging & Trucking, Inc. v. Koeppel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Louis Gendelman Rigging & Trucking, Inc. v. Koeppel

29 A.D.2d 540, 285 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2873

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 4, 1967·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover a sum of money for work, labor and services, defendants appeal (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 18, 1967, as granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and severed the action and (2) from the judgment entered on said order. Order reversed insofar as appealed from and judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and said motion denied. In our opinion, the papers submitted created doubt as to the existence of a triable issue, namely, whether plaintiff had actual knowledge, at the time the contract was made, that defendants were acting as an agent and knew the identity of the alleged principal (Ell Dee Clothing Co. v. Marsh, 247 N. Y. 392, 398; Unger v. Travel Arrangements, 25 A D 2d 40, 47; Special Sections v. Rappaport Co., 25 A D 2d 896; Empire Livestock Marketing Coop. v. Carney, 279 App. Div. 951). Where such doubt exists, a motion for summary judgment should be denied (Millerton Agway Coop. v. Briarcliff Farms, 17 N Y 2d 57, 61). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur; Rabin, J. dissents and votes to affirm the order insofar as appealed from and to affirm the judgment.

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

In an action to recover a sum of money for work, labor and services, defendants appeal (1) from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 18, 1967, as granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and severed the action and (2) from the judgment entered on said order. Order reversed insofar as appealed from and judgment reversed, on the law, without costs, and said motion denied. In our opinion, the papers submitted created doubt as to the existence of a triable issue, namely, whether plaintiff had actual knowledge, at the time the contract was made, that defendants were acting as an agent and knew the identity of the alleged principal (Ell Dee Clothing Co. v. Marsh, 247 N. Y. 392, 398; Unger v. Travel Arrangements, 25 A D 2d 40, 47; Special Sections v. Rappaport Co., 25 A D 2d 896; Empire Livestock Marketing Coop. v. Carney, 279 App. Div. 951). Where such doubt exists, a motion for summary judgment should be denied (Millerton Agway Coop. v. Briarcliff Farms, 17 N Y 2d 57, 61). Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur; Rabin, J. dissents and votes to affirm the order insofar as appealed from and to affirm the judgment.

Louis Gendelman Rigging & Trucking, Inc. v. Koeppel, 29 A.D.2d 540, 285 N.Y.S.2d 310, 1967 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

29 A.D.2d 540 (Louis Gendelman Rigging & Trucking, Inc. v. Koeppel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related