Schlenger v. 310 Canal Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schlenger v. 310 Canal Street Corp.

272 A.D.2d 761

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

DecidedApril 18, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 761 (Schlenger v. 310 Canal Street 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

Schlenger v. 310 Canal Street Corp., 272 A.D.2d 761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

While the rule is that a memorandum to take a contract of sale out of the operation of the Statute of Frauds must state all the essential terms with reasonable certainty and parol evidence may not be resorted to to supply omissions, parol evidence is admissible to explain any ambiguity (United Press v. New York Press Co., 164 N. Y. 406). Plaintiff here purports to rely on the memorandum with additions as written and asserts that parol evidence is necessary only to explain the meaning of the language employed. We think that plaintiff is entitled to develop his case at the trial within the bounds of the substantive law and rules of evidence rather than have his case determined on a motion for summary judgment. Order and judgment reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the motion denied. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Peck, JJ.; Martin, P. J., and Dore, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

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

While the rule is that a memorandum to take a contract of sale out of the operation of the Statute of Frauds must state all the essential terms with reasonable certainty and parol evidence may not be resorted to to supply omissions, parol evidence is admissible to explain any ambiguity (United Press v. New York Press Co., 164 N. Y. 406). Plaintiff here purports to rely on the memorandum with additions as written and asserts that parol evidence is necessary only to explain the meaning of the language employed. We think that plaintiff is entitled to develop his case at the trial within the bounds of the substantive law and rules of evidence rather than have his case determined on a motion for summary judgment. Order and judgment reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the motion denied. Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Peck, JJ.; Martin, P. J., and Dore, J., dissent and vote to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlenger-v-310-canal-street-corp-nyappdiv-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack