Wander v. White House Furs, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wander v. White House Furs, Inc.

54 A.D.2d 963, 388 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14881

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

DecidedNovember 22, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 963 (Wander v. White House Furs, Inc.) 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

Wander v. White House Furs, Inc., 54 A.D.2d 963, 388 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on two promissory notes, commenced by service of a summons and a notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated June 8, 1976, which denied the motion and directed him to serve a formal complaint. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs time to serve his complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The affidavits and exhibits submitted by the parties raised the following three factual issues: first, whether defendants Paul Kling and Anthony Pavlides are individually liable on the notes, as their signatures were followed by their representative titles of "VP” and "Sec” (see Hellawell v Busch & Son, 248 App Div 737); second, the manner in which interest is to be determined, since the notes made no provision for interest; and third, whether defendant White House Fur Salon, Ltd., is liable (the name of that entity does not appear on the notes). Accordingly, Special Term properly denied plaintiffs motion. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on two promissory notes, commenced by service of a summons and a notice of motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, dated June 8, 1976, which denied the motion and directed him to serve a formal complaint. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiffs time to serve his complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. The affidavits and exhibits submitted by the parties raised the following three factual issues: first, whether defendants Paul Kling and Anthony Pavlides are individually liable on the notes, as their signatures were followed by their representative titles of "VP” and "Sec” (see Hellawell v Busch & Son, 248 App Div 737); second, the manner in which interest is to be determined, since the notes made no provision for interest; and third, whether defendant White House Fur Salon, Ltd., is liable (the name of that entity does not appear on the notes). Accordingly, Special Term properly denied plaintiffs motion. Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello and Suozzi, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 963, 388 N.Y.S.2d 929, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14881, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wander-v-white-house-furs-inc-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack