New Dorp Coal Corp. v. Frankel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New Dorp Coal Corp. v. Frankel

254 A.D. 758, 4 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7492

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

DecidedMay 13, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 254 A.D. 758 (New Dorp Coal Corp. v. Frankel) 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

New Dorp Coal Corp. v. Frankel, 254 A.D. 758, 4 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7492 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

On appeal by certain defendants in an action on a guaranty from an order striking out the three defenses pleaded in their amended answer, order affirmed, without costs. In affirming orders denying motions by the present appellants to dismiss the complaint as insufficient (252 App. Div. 760), this court so interpreted the contract and the guaranty thereof, on which the action is based, as to make it the law of the case that the present first defense of performance by the contractor is insufficient in law. The second defense, that the contract and the guaranty thereof were not assignable, has been abandoned on this appeal. The third defense, namely, that a certain award in an arbitration proceeding between the contractor (plaintiff’s assignor) and the other party to the contract is res judicata as to performance of the guaranteed contract, is insufficient in law. The facts alleged in the third defense in respect of the arbitration proceedings do not show an identity of issues between that proceeding and this action. Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

On appeal by certain defendants in an action on a guaranty from an order striking out the three defenses pleaded in their amended answer, order affirmed, without costs. In affirming orders denying motions by the present appellants to dismiss the complaint as insufficient (252 App. Div. 760), this court so interpreted the contract and the guaranty thereof, on which the action is based, as to make it the law of the case that the present first defense of performance by the contractor is insufficient in law. The second defense, that the contract and the guaranty thereof were not assignable, has been abandoned on this appeal. The third defense, namely, that a certain award in an arbitration proceeding between the contractor (plaintiff’s assignor) and the other party to the contract is res judicata as to performance of the guaranteed contract, is insufficient in law. The facts alleged in the third defense in respect of the arbitration proceedings do not show an identity of issues between that proceeding and this action. Lazansky, P. J., Davis, Johnston, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 758, 4 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-dorp-coal-corp-v-frankel-nyappdiv-1938.