Murphy v. Bissell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Bissell

254 A.D. 891, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8191

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

DecidedJune 17, 1938

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 891 (Murphy v. Bissell) 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

Murphy v. Bissell, 254 A.D. 891, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8191 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for an accounting under an alleged partnership agreement, order, in so far as it denies appellants’ renewed motion for summary judgment under Civil Practice Rule 113, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Appeal from original order dismissed. Plaintiff, in his reply, denies he executed and delivered the general release. In his affidavits in opposition to the motion, plaintiff admits he did so but states he did not read the instrument. Nowhere in his affidavits does plaintiff state that he was induced to execute the release or refrain from reading it by misrepresentation or fraud, nor is there any claim of mutual mistake. In our opinion the affidavits do not set forth a triable issue. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for an accounting under an alleged partnership agreement, order, in so far as it denies appellants’ renewed motion for summary judgment under Civil Practice Rule 113, reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Appeal from original order dismissed. Plaintiff, in his reply, denies he executed and delivered the general release. In his affidavits in opposition to the motion, plaintiff admits he did so but states he did not read the instrument. Nowhere in his affidavits does plaintiff state that he was induced to execute the release or refrain from reading it by misrepresentation or fraud, nor is there any claim of mutual mistake. In our opinion the affidavits do not set forth a triable issue. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 891, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-bissell-nyappdiv-1938.