N. M. Obedin v. Tennyson Court, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

N. M. Obedin v. Tennyson Court, Inc.

23 A.D.2d 852, 259 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4320

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

DecidedMay 3, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 23 A.D.2d 852 (N. M. Obedin v. Tennyson Court, 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

N. M. Obedin v. Tennyson Court, Inc., 23 A.D.2d 852, 259 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a brokerage commission allegedly earned by the plaintiff, in which the defendant asserted a counterclaim to recover damages for alleged breach of contract, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 26, 1964 upon reargument, as: (1) granted plaintiff partial summary judgment and $25 costs; and (2) directed the entry of judgment accordingly in his favor. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied in all respects. Defendant’s counterclaim for plaintiff’s breach of the contract is in an amount far in excess of the sum sought to be recovered by the plaintiff in this action. The validity of this counterclaim is supported by proof sufficient to create issues of fact. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied, even though the defendant concedes that the major part of the sum claimed by the plaintiff is owing to him (Illinois McGraw Elec. Co. v. John J. Walter, Inc., 7 N Y 2d 874, 876, 877; Hellmuth v. Brandin, 3 A D 2d 997; cf. Hopeo Ghem. Co. v. Milner, 12 A D 2d 942; Metal Specialty Prods. Corp. v. Howal-Bonset Instrument Co., 19' A D 2d 745). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a brokerage commission allegedly earned by the plaintiff, in which the defendant asserted a counterclaim to recover damages for alleged breach of contract, the defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered March 26, 1964 upon reargument, as: (1) granted plaintiff partial summary judgment and $25 costs; and (2) directed the entry of judgment accordingly in his favor. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed, without costs, and plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment denied in all respects. Defendant’s counterclaim for plaintiff’s breach of the contract is in an amount far in excess of the sum sought to be recovered by the plaintiff in this action. The validity of this counterclaim is supported by proof sufficient to create issues of fact. Under these circumstances, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment should be denied, even though the defendant concedes that the major part of the sum claimed by the plaintiff is owing to him (Illinois McGraw Elec. Co. v. John J. Walter, Inc., 7 N Y 2d 874, 876, 877; Hellmuth v. Brandin, 3 A D 2d 997; cf. Hopeo Ghem. Co. v. Milner, 12 A D 2d 942; Metal Specialty Prods. Corp. v. Howal-Bonset Instrument Co., 19' A D 2d 745). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Rabin, Hopkins and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.2d 852, 259 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/n-m-obedin-v-tennyson-court-inc-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack