Schuman v. Summers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schuman v. Summers

129 A.D.2d 966, 514 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45618

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

DecidedApril 3, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A.D.2d 966 (Schuman v. Summers) 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

Schuman v. Summers, 129 A.D.2d 966, 514 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45618 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law to deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and as modified affirmed without costs, and judgment entered thereon vacated. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. However, it was error for the court to grant summary judgment to plaintiff. There is a question of fact whether defendant occupied the premises during the period at issue pursuant to an agreement between defendant and plaintiffs agent rendering paragraph three of the lease inapplicable in the circumstances. If such an agreement was made, there is a need for further exploration of its terms and conditions. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously modified on the law to deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and as modified affirmed without costs, and judgment entered thereon vacated. Memorandum: The court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment. However, it was error for the court to grant summary judgment to plaintiff. There is a question of fact whether defendant occupied the premises during the period at issue pursuant to an agreement between defendant and plaintiffs agent rendering paragraph three of the lease inapplicable in the circumstances. If such an agreement was made, there is a need for further exploration of its terms and conditions. (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Galloway, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.2d 966, 514 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schuman-v-summers-nyappdiv-1987.