Marine Midland Trust Co. v. Macaluso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marine Midland Trust Co. v. Macaluso

30 A.D.2d 932, 293 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3287

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 1968

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 30 A.D.2d 932 (Marine Midland Trust Co. v. Macaluso) 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

Marine Midland Trust Co. v. Macaluso, 30 A.D.2d 932, 293 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: Summary judgment should not have been granted because the facts upon which the motion was predicated are not within the knowledge of the defendant but are exclusively within the knowledge of the plaintiff. “ Summary judgment is not justified where there are likely to be defenses that depend upon knowledge in the possession of the party moving for judgment, which might be disclosed by cross-examination or examination before trial.” (Procter & Gamble Distr. Co. v. Lawrence Amer. Field Warehousing Corp., 16 N Y 2d 344, 362; Crocker-Citizens Nat. Bank v. L. N. Magazine Distributors, 26 A D 2d 667.) (Appeal from judgment and order of Jefferson Special Term granting motion for summary judgment in an action on a promissory note.) Present—Bastow, P. J., Williams, Marsh, Witmer and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment and order unanimously reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and motion denied, without costs. Memorandum: Summary judgment should not have been granted because the facts upon which the motion was predicated are not within the knowledge of the defendant but are exclusively within the knowledge of the plaintiff. “ Summary judgment is not justified where there are likely to be defenses that depend upon knowledge in the possession of the party moving for judgment, which might be disclosed by cross-examination or examination before trial.” (Procter & Gamble Distr. Co. v. Lawrence Amer. Field Warehousing Corp., 16 N Y 2d 344, 362; Crocker-Citizens Nat. Bank v. L. N. Magazine Distributors, 26 A D 2d 667.) (Appeal from judgment and order of Jefferson Special Term granting motion for summary judgment in an action on a promissory note.) Present—Bastow, P. J., Williams, Marsh, Witmer and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 932, 293 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marine-midland-trust-co-v-macaluso-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack