Sichenzia v. De Simone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sichenzia v. De Simone

241 A.D. 823

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

DecidedApril 15, 1934

StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.D. 823 (Sichenzia v. De Simone) 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

Sichenzia v. De Simone, 241 A.D. 823 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appeEant to abide the event. The issue tendered by the pleadings was whether the plaintiff made a loan of $4,000 to the defendants. At the close of the plaintiff’s case the testimony adduced by the plaintiff in support of his claim was struck out, on motion, on the ground that it tended to vary the terms of a mortgage made to the plaintiff, subsequently to the transaction, by a corporation not a party to the action. One of the defenses pleaded was that the loan was made not to the defendants but to that corporation. In so far as the record discloses, the mortgage was but coEateral security for the loan. Plaintiff made out a prima facie case amply supported by proof. The court erroneously struck out the testimony. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appeEant to abide the event. The issue tendered by the pleadings was whether the plaintiff made a loan of $4,000 to the defendants. At the close of the plaintiff’s case the testimony adduced by the plaintiff in support of his claim was struck out, on motion, on the ground that it tended to vary the terms of a mortgage made to the plaintiff, subsequently to the transaction, by a corporation not a party to the action. One of the defenses pleaded was that the loan was made not to the defendants but to that corporation. In so far as the record discloses, the mortgage was but coEateral security for the loan. Plaintiff made out a prima facie case amply supported by proof. The court erroneously struck out the testimony. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D. 823, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sichenzia-v-de-simone-nyappdiv-1934.