Marcus v. C. I. F. Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marcus v. C. I. F. Inc.

26 A.D.2d 923, 274 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3088

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 26 A.D.2d 923 (Marcus v. C. I. F. Inc.) 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

Marcus v. C. I. F. Inc., 26 A.D.2d 923, 274 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3088 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered on July 19, 1966, appealed from unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion of defendant-appellant (appellant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant. Plaintiff-respondent (respondent) alleges appellant orally agreed to extend credit up to $5,000,000 for a period [924]*924of a minimum of two years with the right, inter alia, in appellant to approve each loan made under the credit. Appellant in its answer, in addition to denials, pleaded the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law, § 5-701) as an affirmative defense. Thereafter appellant’s motion for an order pursuant to CP-LR 3212, dismissing the complaint, was denied. Under the undisputed facts of this case the Statute of Frauds is an absolute defense and the motion should have been granted (cf. Harris v. Home Ind. Co., 6 A D 2d 861). Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Order, entered on July 19, 1966, appealed from unanimously reversed, on the law, and the motion of defendant-appellant (appellant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant. Plaintiff-respondent (respondent) alleges appellant orally agreed to extend credit up to $5,000,000 for a period [924]*924of a minimum of two years with the right, inter alia, in appellant to approve each loan made under the credit. Appellant in its answer, in addition to denials, pleaded the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law, § 5-701) as an affirmative defense. Thereafter appellant’s motion for an order pursuant to CP-LR 3212, dismissing the complaint, was denied. Under the undisputed facts of this case the Statute of Frauds is an absolute defense and the motion should have been granted (cf. Harris v. Home Ind. Co., 6 A D 2d 861). Concur — Breitel, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.2d 923, 274 N.Y.S.2d 713, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3088, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcus-v-c-i-f-inc-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack