Smolenack v. Hess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Smolenack v. Hess

274 A.D. 907, 83 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3988

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 25, 1948·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

In an action to recover the balance due on a promissory note executed and delivered by defendant in part payment for a trailer, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion for summary judgment granted, with $10 costs. Ho affidavits by affiants having personal knowledge were interposed by defendant. The affidavit of the attorney, having no personal knowledge and reciting hearsay, is of no effect. (Favole v. Gallo, 263 App. Div. 729, affd. 289 N. Y. 696.) Holán, P. J., Cars-well, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover the balance due on a promissory note executed and delivered by defendant in part payment for a trailer, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion for summary judgment granted, with $10 costs. Ho affidavits by affiants having personal knowledge were interposed by defendant. The affidavit of the attorney, having no personal knowledge and reciting hearsay, is of no effect. (Favole v. Gallo, 263 App. Div. 729, affd. 289 N. Y. 696.) Holán, P. J., Cars-well, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ., concur.

Smolenack v. Hess, 274 A.D. 907, 83 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3988 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

274 A.D. 907 (Smolenack v. Hess) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related