Shaad v. Hutchinson's Boat Works, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shaad v. Hutchinson's Boat Works, Inc.

40 A.D.2d 757, 337 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 757 (Shaad v. Hutchinson's Boat Works, Inc.) 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

Shaad v. Hutchinson's Boat Works, Inc., 40 A.D.2d 757, 337 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified by striking the words “ on the merits ” and as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In this action by an attorney to recover for legal services, a question is raised as to when the cause of action accrued. The complaint, the schedule annexed to the complaint, and the affidavit in opposition to the motion to dismiss set forth different dates. An issue of fact is present which should be resolved at trial. (Golia v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N. Y., 6 A D 2d 884, affd. 7 N Y 2d 931; 30-12 Lewmay Corp. v. Public Mut. Ins. Co., 28 A D 2d 837; Liberman v. Zeigen, 258 App. Div. 893.) (Appeal from order of Jefferson Special Term denying motion to dismiss complaint in action for payment of legal fees.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Moule and Henry, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified by striking the words “ on the merits ” and as so modified, affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: In this action by an attorney to recover for legal services, a question is raised as to when the cause of action accrued. The complaint, the schedule annexed to the complaint, and the affidavit in opposition to the motion to dismiss set forth different dates. An issue of fact is present which should be resolved at trial. (Golia v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N. Y., 6 A D 2d 884, affd. 7 N Y 2d 931; 30-12 Lewmay Corp. v. Public Mut. Ins. Co., 28 A D 2d 837; Liberman v. Zeigen, 258 App. Div. 893.) (Appeal from order of Jefferson Special Term denying motion to dismiss complaint in action for payment of legal fees.) Present — Goldman, P. J., Del Vecchio, Witmer, Moule and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 757, 337 N.Y.S.2d 794, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaad-v-hutchinsons-boat-works-inc-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack