Sam v. Farkas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sam v. Farkas

11 A.D.2d 1079, 206 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7615

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.2d 1079 (Sam v. Farkas) 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

Sam v. Farkas, 11 A.D.2d 1079, 206 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders insofar as appealed from unanimously modified to provide that the objections to the complaint that the writing upon which the causes of action are based is unenforcible under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds are overruled and the defendant is permitted to allege the same facts as a defense in her answer, and as modified the orders are affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: In the exercise of a proper discretion the objections to the complaint should be overruled and defendant permitted to allege the same facts as a defense in her answer. (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 108.) (Appeal from parts of two orders of Chautauqua Special Term denying motion by defendant to dismiss the complaint. The second order was an order of resettlement.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.

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

Orders insofar as appealed from unanimously modified to provide that the objections to the complaint that the writing upon which the causes of action are based is unenforcible under the provisions of the Statute of Frauds are overruled and the defendant is permitted to allege the same facts as a defense in her answer, and as modified the orders are affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: In the exercise of a proper discretion the objections to the complaint should be overruled and defendant permitted to allege the same facts as a defense in her answer. (Rules Civ. Prae., rule 108.) (Appeal from parts of two orders of Chautauqua Special Term denying motion by defendant to dismiss the complaint. The second order was an order of resettlement.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.2d 1079, 206 N.Y.S.2d 428, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sam-v-farkas-nyappdiv-1960.