Slote v. Capital Exchange Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Slote v. Capital Exchange Corp.

30 A.D.2d 647, 291 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3766

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

DecidedJune 11, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 30 A.D.2d 647 (Slote v. Capital Exchange 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

Slote v. Capital Exchange Corp., 30 A.D.2d 647, 291 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered February 2,1968, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event, and the case remanded for trial on the issues raised by the defenses by way of setoff. Plaintiff, as trustee in bankruptcy, sues on a promissory note for $50,000. There is no defense to the note but by way of setoff defendant pleads that it is the holder of two notes made by the bankrupt, which notes exceed in amount the note sued upon. An inspection of the record reveals that there are questions as to the date and manner of acquisition of the two notes which cast doubt on whether the notes are proper subjects of setoff. A trial is required. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Eager, Steuer, Capozzoli and McNally, JJ.

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

Order entered February 2,1968, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to abide the event, and the case remanded for trial on the issues raised by the defenses by way of setoff. Plaintiff, as trustee in bankruptcy, sues on a promissory note for $50,000. There is no defense to the note but by way of setoff defendant pleads that it is the holder of two notes made by the bankrupt, which notes exceed in amount the note sued upon. An inspection of the record reveals that there are questions as to the date and manner of acquisition of the two notes which cast doubt on whether the notes are proper subjects of setoff. A trial is required. Concur—Stevens, J. P., Eager, Steuer, Capozzoli and McNally, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 A.D.2d 647, 291 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slote-v-capital-exchange-corp-nyappdiv-1968.