Rosenberg v. Fischl

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenberg v. Fischl

18 A.D.2d 888, 237 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4454

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 888 (Rosenberg v. Fischl) 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

Rosenberg v. Fischl, 18 A.D.2d 888, 237 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Oifder, entered on October 1, 1962, denying defendant-appellant’s motion, pursuant to subdivision 7 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint upon the ground the alleged contract upon which the action is based is unenforeible under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. It is conceded that the contract to sell defendant corporation’s stock for $15,000, as pleaded in the complaint, was oral; and no showing whatsoever is made in the record on appeal to support plaintiff’s claim of an estoppel (Bulkley v. Shaw, 289 N. Y. 133, 139; Werking v. Amity Estates, 2 N Y 2d 43, 52). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valiente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

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

Oifder, entered on October 1, 1962, denying defendant-appellant’s motion, pursuant to subdivision 7 of rule 107 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to dismiss the complaint upon the ground the alleged contract upon which the action is based is unenforeible under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. It is conceded that the contract to sell defendant corporation’s stock for $15,000, as pleaded in the complaint, was oral; and no showing whatsoever is made in the record on appeal to support plaintiff’s claim of an estoppel (Bulkley v. Shaw, 289 N. Y. 133, 139; Werking v. Amity Estates, 2 N Y 2d 43, 52). Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valiente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 888, 237 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenberg-v-fischl-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack