State v. Herschowsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Herschowsky

124 A.D.2d 338, 508 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61365

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.2d 338 (State v. Herschowsky) 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

State v. Herschowsky, 124 A.D.2d 338, 508 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61365 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

The order should be affirmed. We agree with Special Term that the records submitted by the State are not sufficiently free from ambiguity to justify an award of summary judgment for the amount claimed to be due by the State on certain lottery ticket consignment transactions. Indeed, the need to include supplemental explanations upon both the motion for reargument and this appeal to explain inconsistencies, ambiguities and gaps in the State’s records establishes that those records are not of the type and quality necessary to support a summary judgment motion. The State’s claim that defendant Norman Herschowsky failed to maintain records of the various transactions at issue does not alter the State’s burden, as plaintiff, of establishing its entitlement to the amount sought to be recovered in the action.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

The order should be affirmed. We agree with Special Term that the records submitted by the State are not sufficiently free from ambiguity to justify an award of summary judgment for the amount claimed to be due by the State on certain lottery ticket consignment transactions. Indeed, the need to include supplemental explanations upon both the motion for reargument and this appeal to explain inconsistencies, ambiguities and gaps in the State’s records establishes that those records are not of the type and quality necessary to support a summary judgment motion. The State’s claim that defendant Norman Herschowsky failed to maintain records of the various transactions at issue does not alter the State’s burden, as plaintiff, of establishing its entitlement to the amount sought to be recovered in the action.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Casey, Mikoll and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 338, 508 N.Y.S.2d 294, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-herschowsky-nyappdiv-1986.