Merling, Marx, & Seidman, Inc. v. Dynamic Classics, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merling, Marx, & Seidman, Inc. v. Dynamic Classics, Ltd.

42 A.D.2d 542, 345 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4133

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

DecidedJune 19, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 542 (Merling, Marx, & Seidman, Inc. v. Dynamic Classics, Ltd.) 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

Merling, Marx, & Seidman, Inc. v. Dynamic Classics, Ltd., 42 A.D.2d 542, 345 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4133 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 11,1973, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the plaintiff-respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment denied. Appellant shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In an endeavor to compromise plaintiff-respondent’s claim for work, labor, services and materials furnished, defendant’s attorney wrote a letter to his adversary offering a certain amount in full settlement. Special Term granted partial summary judgment in this amount. The letter is incapable of construction as an admission of liability but must be limited to its function as part of a settlement negotiation. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lane and Macken, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered January 11,1973, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the plaintiff-respondent’s motion for partial summary judgment denied. Appellant shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. In an endeavor to compromise plaintiff-respondent’s claim for work, labor, services and materials furnished, defendant’s attorney wrote a letter to his adversary offering a certain amount in full settlement. Special Term granted partial summary judgment in this amount. The letter is incapable of construction as an admission of liability but must be limited to its function as part of a settlement negotiation. Concur — Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lane and Macken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 542, 345 N.Y.S.2d 557, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merling-marx-seidman-inc-v-dynamic-classics-ltd-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack