Smolenack v. Hess
This text of 274 A.D. 907 (Smolenack v. Hess) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
274 A.D. 907, 83 N.Y.S.2d 79, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smolenack-v-hess-nyappdiv-1948.