Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

2 A.D.2d 662, 152 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5099

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

DecidedJune 5, 1956

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.2d 662 (Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film 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

Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 2 A.D.2d 662, 152 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed and the motion for summary judgment granted in favor of appellant, with $20 costs and disbursements of the appeal to appellant. The underlying agreement between appellant and National Pictures Corporation did not contain merely a personal covenant against assignment, but clearly indicated, particularly by the language prohibiting the devolution of any rights, that such rights were not assignable. (See Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp., 303 N. Y. 446.) Further, it has not been shown that the anti-assignment provisions have been waived, or that appellant is estopped from asserting these provisions. Since there are no triable issues of fact, the motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin and Valente, JJ.; Cox and Frank, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm. Settle order on notice.

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

Order reversed and the motion for summary judgment granted in favor of appellant, with $20 costs and disbursements of the appeal to appellant. The underlying agreement between appellant and National Pictures Corporation did not contain merely a personal covenant against assignment, but clearly indicated, particularly by the language prohibiting the devolution of any rights, that such rights were not assignable. (See Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp., 303 N. Y. 446.) Further, it has not been shown that the anti-assignment provisions have been waived, or that appellant is estopped from asserting these provisions. Since there are no triable issues of fact, the motion for summary judgment should have been granted. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin and Valente, JJ.; Cox and Frank, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.2d 662, 152 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1956 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sillman-v-twentieth-century-fox-film-corp-nyappdiv-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack