Sustrin v. Jethmal & Sons, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sustrin v. Jethmal & Sons, Ltd.

24 A.D.2d 417, 260 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3972

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

DecidedJune 8, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 417 (Sustrin v. Jethmal & Sons, Ltd.) 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

Sustrin v. Jethmal & Sons, Ltd., 24 A.D.2d 417, 260 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3972 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, on the law and on the facts, with $50 costs to respondent. Partial summary judgment was properly granted to the assignee of a claim for goods sold and delivered, and the second counterclaim for a credit and allowance in settlement of a claim for damaged merchandise was properly severed. The first counterclaim alleges a breach of the agreement sued upon in that the plaintiff’s assignor granted to the defendant an exclusive distributorship of the goods sold for the Hong Kong and Philippine areas. It is further alleged that the plaintiff’s assignor breached this agreement in that it sold to defendant’s competitors in those areas. The allegations of this counterclaim are too vague and indefinite for this court to determine the merits, if any, or to defeat the granting of summary judgment. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

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

— Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, on the law and on the facts, with $50 costs to respondent. Partial summary judgment was properly granted to the assignee of a claim for goods sold and delivered, and the second counterclaim for a credit and allowance in settlement of a claim for damaged merchandise was properly severed. The first counterclaim alleges a breach of the agreement sued upon in that the plaintiff’s assignor granted to the defendant an exclusive distributorship of the goods sold for the Hong Kong and Philippine areas. It is further alleged that the plaintiff’s assignor breached this agreement in that it sold to defendant’s competitors in those areas. The allegations of this counterclaim are too vague and indefinite for this court to determine the merits, if any, or to defeat the granting of summary judgment. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 417, 260 N.Y.S.2d 263, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sustrin-v-jethmal-sons-ltd-nyappdiv-1965.