Wilson v. Zaher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilson v. Zaher

3 A.D.2d 739, 160 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6117

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 3 A.D.2d 739 (Wilson v. Zaher) 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

Wilson v. Zaher, 3 A.D.2d 739, 160 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6117 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff’s pleading and testimony disclose that he relies for recovery against defendant on fraud based on purported misrepresentations of existing facts leading to the loan of $5,000 to a corporation controlled by defendant. One such claimed misrepresentation was that the corporation had a patent issued to it for a device used in shoe manufacturing rather than a pending application for such a patent; another is as to a representation of financial status of the corporation at the time of the loan. In deciding the controversy for defendant the court did not deal one way or another with these controlling issues, but treated as determinative the motive of plaintiff to improve his finances by making the loan; the activity of plaintiff’s son-in-law in promoting the loan; and the fact that the loan was made to the corporation and not to defendant individually. The issue of purported fraud should be determined. Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Concur — Peek, P. J., Rabin, Frank, McNally and Bergan, JJ.

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

Plaintiff’s pleading and testimony disclose that he relies for recovery against defendant on fraud based on purported misrepresentations of existing facts leading to the loan of $5,000 to a corporation controlled by defendant. One such claimed misrepresentation was that the corporation had a patent issued to it for a device used in shoe manufacturing rather than a pending application for such a patent; another is as to a representation of financial status of the corporation at the time of the loan. In deciding the controversy for defendant the court did not deal one way or another with these controlling issues, but treated as determinative the motive of plaintiff to improve his finances by making the loan; the activity of plaintiff’s son-in-law in promoting the loan; and the fact that the loan was made to the corporation and not to defendant individually. The issue of purported fraud should be determined. Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Concur — Peek, P. J., Rabin, Frank, McNally and Bergan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 739, 160 N.Y.S.2d 450, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-zaher-nyappdiv-1957.