Melton Automotive, Inc. v. Magnani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Melton Automotive, Inc. v. Magnani

71 A.D.2d 998, 420 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13325

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.2d 998 (Melton Automotive, Inc. v. Magnani) 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

Melton Automotive, Inc. v. Magnani, 71 A.D.2d 998, 420 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13325 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, defendant Peter Owens appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 25, 1979, which, inter alia, denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to him. Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto, immedi[999]*999ately after the words "cross motion is denied”, the following: "without prejudice to renewal upon submission of an affidavit by defendant Owens founded on personal knowledge.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We agree with Special Term that without an affidavit by the defendant Owens explaining the circumstances surrounding the transfer of the $565 and the receipt, triable issues of fact exist. The determination is made without prejudice to renewal by defendant Owens upon proper papers, if he be so advised. O’Connor, J. P., Lazer, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion, defendant Peter Owens appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated January 25, 1979, which, inter alia, denied his cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as to him. Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto, immedi[999]*999ately after the words "cross motion is denied”, the following: "without prejudice to renewal upon submission of an affidavit by defendant Owens founded on personal knowledge.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. We agree with Special Term that without an affidavit by the defendant Owens explaining the circumstances surrounding the transfer of the $565 and the receipt, triable issues of fact exist. The determination is made without prejudice to renewal by defendant Owens upon proper papers, if he be so advised. O’Connor, J. P., Lazer, Rabin and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 998, 420 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melton-automotive-inc-v-magnani-nyappdiv-1979.