Schoolsky v. Dalvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schoolsky v. Dalvin

51 A.D.2d 1026, 381 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11816

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 1026 (Schoolsky v. Dalvin) 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

Schoolsky v. Dalvin, 51 A.D.2d 1026, 381 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on a series of promissory notes, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 1, 1975, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff’s time to serve his complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. In our opinion the answering papers raised sufficient questions of fact as to whether plaintiff had induced consummation of the sale through misrepresentations concerning certain inventory and an outstanding claim, to warrant a trial of the action (cf. Millerton Agway Coop, v Briarcliff Farms, 17 NY2d 57). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on a series of promissory notes, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 1, 1975, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff’s time to serve his complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. In our opinion the answering papers raised sufficient questions of fact as to whether plaintiff had induced consummation of the sale through misrepresentations concerning certain inventory and an outstanding claim, to warrant a trial of the action (cf. Millerton Agway Coop, v Briarcliff Farms, 17 NY2d 57). Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 1026, 381 N.Y.S.2d 125, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoolsky-v-dalvin-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack