Merlau v. Dermetics Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merlau v. Dermetics Co.

264 A.D. 829, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4884

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

DecidedMay 20, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D. 829 (Merlau v. Dermetics 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

Merlau v. Dermetics Co., 264 A.D. 829, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Order modified on the law and facts by striking out the second ordering paragraph thereof and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: The moving and answering affidavits raise a question of fact as to which one of the writings is the contract between the parties. This being the ease, neither party was entitled to summary judgment. Until the terms of the contract are established, the court cannot determine whether such contract is objectionable in point of law. All concur. (The order denies defendant’s motion for summary judgment and directs judgment for plaintiff for damages alleged in the complaint to be assessed by a jury, in an action for breach of contract.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.

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

Order modified on the law and facts by striking out the second ordering paragraph thereof and as modified affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: The moving and answering affidavits raise a question of fact as to which one of the writings is the contract between the parties. This being the ease, neither party was entitled to summary judgment. Until the terms of the contract are established, the court cannot determine whether such contract is objectionable in point of law. All concur. (The order denies defendant’s motion for summary judgment and directs judgment for plaintiff for damages alleged in the complaint to be assessed by a jury, in an action for breach of contract.) Present — Crosby, P. J., Cunningham, Dowling, Harris and MeCurn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D. 829, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merlau-v-dermetics-co-nyappdiv-1942.