Pascoe v. Electromatic Manufacturing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pascoe v. Electromatic Manufacturing Corp.

3 A.D.2d 818, 161 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5986

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

DecidedApril 2, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 818 (Pascoe v. Electromatic Manufacturing Corp.) 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

Pascoe v. Electromatic Manufacturing Corp., 3 A.D.2d 818, 161 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, -with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. In affirming we do not overlook the case of Lucio v. Curran (2 N Y 2d 157). It is clear from the Lucio ease that the courts look behind the release when an issue is raised with respect to what the parties intended to release. This the court did in the Lucio ease, and, on a motion for summary judgment, held that the affidavits clearly showed that it was intended that the release cover “ the instant dispute The court had before it the simple issue as to whether the affidavits raised any triable question of fact in connection with the intention of the parties. Applying the same test to this ease we must consider whether the parties intended by the releases to release a claim with respect to excise taxes. We can make no finding with respect thereto since the affidavits present a triable issue in that regard. The resolution of that issue is for the trial court. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Botein, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ. [Sec post, p. 906.]

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

Order unanimously affirmed, -with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondents. In affirming we do not overlook the case of Lucio v. Curran (2 N Y 2d 157). It is clear from the Lucio ease that the courts look behind the release when an issue is raised with respect to what the parties intended to release. This the court did in the Lucio ease, and, on a motion for summary judgment, held that the affidavits clearly showed that it was intended that the release cover “ the instant dispute The court had before it the simple issue as to whether the affidavits raised any triable question of fact in connection with the intention of the parties. Applying the same test to this ease we must consider whether the parties intended by the releases to release a claim with respect to excise taxes. We can make no finding with respect thereto since the affidavits present a triable issue in that regard. The resolution of that issue is for the trial court. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Botein, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ. [Sec post, p. 906.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 818, 161 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pascoe-v-electromatic-manufacturing-corp-nyappdiv-1957.