Raybin v. Raybin

15 A.D.2d 679, 224 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11825
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 29, 1962·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

In our opinion, the record discloses triable issues of fact which should await a trial. Evidence which might be excluded on a trial pursuant to section 347 of the Civil Practice Act, while not to be used as the basis for granting summary judgment in favor of the party who offers such evidence (Ditkoff v. Prudential Sav. Bank, 245 App. Div. 748), may nevertheless be considered in ascertaining whether a triable issue exists and may be utilized as the basis for denying summary judgment to such party (Bourgeois v. Celentano, 10 A D 2d 824 [1st Dept. 1960]). Moreover, the affidavit of defendant’s father-in-law should have been considered [680]*680although the answer does not contain an affirmative defense of a forgiveness of the indebtedness (Curry v. Mackenzie, 239 N. Y. 267, 272). Beldock, P. J., Christ, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Raybin v. Raybin, 15 A.D.2d 679, 224 N.Y.S.2d 165, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

15 A.D.2d 679 (Raybin v. Raybin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Metz
171 Misc. 2d 525 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
Friedman v. Sills
112 A.D.2d 343 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Horowitz v. Kevah Konner, Inc.
67 A.D.2d 38 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Pelusio v. Mulye
52 A.D.2d 1045 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)