Luddington v. Millard
135 Misc. 480, 238 N.Y.S. 238, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1018
Opinion
It does not appear from the answer that the alleged agreement was oral, and the objection of the Statute of Frauds is not available at this time. (Oldham v. Pinkus, 31 Misc. 768.) The agreement does not seek to modify a written contract but to establish an independent collateral agreement. (McCreery v. Day, 119 N. Y. 1.) The motion being one to strike out the answer containing denials, is in the nature of a demurrer and the allegations in the answer must be accepted as true.
Motion denied, with ten dollars costs to abide event.
So ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Luddington v. Millard, 135 Misc. 480, 238 N.Y.S. 238, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1018 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1929).
135 Misc. 480 (Luddington v. Millard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McCreery v. . Day
23 N.E. 198 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
Oldham v. Pinkus
31 Misc. 768 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1900)