Santomauro v. Pollio Products Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Santomauro v. Pollio Products Corp.

15 A.D.2d 944, 225 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10904

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1962

StatusPublished

This text of 15 A.D.2d 944 (Santomauro v. Pollio Products 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

Santomauro v. Pollio Products Corp., 15 A.D.2d 944, 225 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

On the present record, the charges of bad faith asserted against petitioner stand undenied. The allegations that petitioner was consorting with competitors raised a substantial issue of fact as to his good faith (Matter of Sunny dale Farms v. Premium Dairy Co., 7 A D 2d 737). Under all the circumstances, the learned Special Term Justice was not free, on this record, to exercise his discretion and to conclude that petitioner had shown good faith; he was required to defer the determination of that issue until after a hearing (Matter of Breswick & Co. v. Greater N. Y. Inds., 308 N. Y. 1041, 1043; Matter of Schwartz v. Travelers Hotel, 5 A D 2d 880; Matter of Schwartz v. Travelers Hotel, 7 A D 2d 848; Matter of Carthage Paper Makers v. Mutual Box Bd. Co., 2 A D 175, 177-178). Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur; Ughetta, Acting P. J., not voting.

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

On the present record, the charges of bad faith asserted against petitioner stand undenied. The allegations that petitioner was consorting with competitors raised a substantial issue of fact as to his good faith (Matter of Sunny dale Farms v. Premium Dairy Co., 7 A D 2d 737). Under all the circumstances, the learned Special Term Justice was not free, on this record, to exercise his discretion and to conclude that petitioner had shown good faith; he was required to defer the determination of that issue until after a hearing (Matter of Breswick & Co. v. Greater N. Y. Inds., 308 N. Y. 1041, 1043; Matter of Schwartz v. Travelers Hotel, 5 A D 2d 880; Matter of Schwartz v. Travelers Hotel, 7 A D 2d 848; Matter of Carthage Paper Makers v. Mutual Box Bd. Co., 2 A D 175, 177-178). Christ, Brennan, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur; Ughetta, Acting P. J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 A.D.2d 944, 225 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/santomauro-v-pollio-products-corp-nyappdiv-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack