Mee v. Thompson Starrett Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mee v. Thompson Starrett Co.

31 A.D.2d 616, 295 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2704

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 616 (Mee v. Thompson Starrett 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

Mee v. Thompson Starrett Co., 31 A.D.2d 616, 295 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered August 5, 1968, unanimously affirmed, without costs and .disbursements. Although there exists considerable doubt as to the merits of plaintiff’s cause of action and as to the existence of the alleged understanding which would avoid the effect of the general release delivered in escrow, we conclude that the record does not permit as a matter of law dismissal of the action. It is settled that “ summary judgment should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence ‘ of [factual] issues’.” (Millerton Agway Coop. V. Briarcliff Farms, 17 N Y 2d 57, 61; Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N Y 2d 395,404.) Concur - Stevens, J. P., Eager, Capozzoli, McGivern and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order, entered August 5, 1968, unanimously affirmed, without costs and .disbursements. Although there exists considerable doubt as to the merits of plaintiff’s cause of action and as to the existence of the alleged understanding which would avoid the effect of the general release delivered in escrow, we conclude that the record does not permit as a matter of law dismissal of the action. It is settled that “ summary judgment should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence ‘ of [factual] issues’.” (Millerton Agway Coop. V. Briarcliff Farms, 17 N Y 2d 57, 61; Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N Y 2d 395,404.) Concur - Stevens, J. P., Eager, Capozzoli, McGivern and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 616, 295 N.Y.S.2d 866, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mee-v-thompson-starrett-co-nyappdiv-1968.