Washington Fillmore Iron Works Inc. v. Klemp Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Washington Fillmore Iron Works Inc. v. Klemp Corp.

29 A.D.2d 836, 287 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4576

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

DecidedFebruary 22, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 836 (Washington Fillmore Iron Works Inc. v. Klemp Corp.) 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

Washington Fillmore Iron Works Inc. v. Klemp Corp., 29 A.D.2d 836, 287 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4576 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: In treating this motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, as required by CPLR 3211 (subd. [c]) we conclude that the affidavit by defendant’s attorney Pearlman, which provided the only basis for the court’s determination as to what part of the obligations sued on had been discharged by the article XI arrangement and what obligation arose after the arrangement, is without probative value. It does not appear that the affiant had personal knowledge of the date when the obligations alleged to have been discharged were incurred. (Fauci v. Milano, 15 A D 2d 939, affid. 12 N Y 2d 926; Cohen v. Pannia, 7 A D 2d 886.) (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term granting motion to partially dismiss complaint.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Del Veechio, Marsh, Witmer and Henry, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed, with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: In treating this motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, as required by CPLR 3211 (subd. [c]) we conclude that the affidavit by defendant’s attorney Pearlman, which provided the only basis for the court’s determination as to what part of the obligations sued on had been discharged by the article XI arrangement and what obligation arose after the arrangement, is without probative value. It does not appear that the affiant had personal knowledge of the date when the obligations alleged to have been discharged were incurred. (Fauci v. Milano, 15 A D 2d 939, affid. 12 N Y 2d 926; Cohen v. Pannia, 7 A D 2d 886.) (Appeal from order of Erie Special Term granting motion to partially dismiss complaint.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Del Veechio, Marsh, Witmer and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 836, 287 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-fillmore-iron-works-inc-v-klemp-corp-nyappdiv-1968.