Mosher v. Rowland Distributers, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mosher v. Rowland Distributers, Inc.

15 A.D.2d 934, 225 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11028

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 A.D.2d 934 (Mosher v. Rowland Distributers, Inc.) 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

Mosher v. Rowland Distributers, Inc., 15 A.D.2d 934, 225 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

In our opinion, the record shows the existence of triable issues of fact. In any event, the material facts as to the total amount of the gross sales within the period or periods of time in question are clearly not within plaintiffs’ personal knowledge and apparently are exclusively within defendant’s knowledge. For that reason alone summary judgment should not have been granted (Moller v. Candlewood Constr. Corp., 12 A D 2d 959; Hogan v. Ciancimino 12 A D 2d 501; Vignola v. Britts, 11 A D 2d 801; Ardisco, Ltd. v. Taconic Holding Corp., 10 A D 2d 973; De France v. Oestrike, 8 A D 2d 735). We also believe that under all the circumstances disclosed, the plaintiffs ought to be allowed an opportunity to develop the facts through an examination before trial before summary judgment is granted against them (see Lori-Jay Knitting Mills v. Columbia Knitting Mills, 21 Misc 2d 537; Bartels v. Rubel Corp., 205 Misc 673). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

In our opinion, the record shows the existence of triable issues of fact. In any event, the material facts as to the total amount of the gross sales within the period or periods of time in question are clearly not within plaintiffs’ personal knowledge and apparently are exclusively within defendant’s knowledge. For that reason alone summary judgment should not have been granted (Moller v. Candlewood Constr. Corp., 12 A D 2d 959; Hogan v. Ciancimino 12 A D 2d 501; Vignola v. Britts, 11 A D 2d 801; Ardisco, Ltd. v. Taconic Holding Corp., 10 A D 2d 973; De France v. Oestrike, 8 A D 2d 735). We also believe that under all the circumstances disclosed, the plaintiffs ought to be allowed an opportunity to develop the facts through an examination before trial before summary judgment is granted against them (see Lori-Jay Knitting Mills v. Columbia Knitting Mills, 21 Misc 2d 537; Bartels v. Rubel Corp., 205 Misc 673). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 934, 225 N.Y.S.2d 883, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mosher-v-rowland-distributers-inc-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack