Wolf v. Heating Maintenance Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wolf v. Heating Maintenance Corp.

20 A.D.2d 861, 248 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4056

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

DecidedApril 9, 1964

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 20 A.D.2d 861 (Wolf v. Heating Maintenance 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

Wolf v. Heating Maintenance Corp., 20 A.D.2d 861, 248 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, entered January 6, 1964, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. While the affidavits of defendant may be lacking in the degree of disclosure of evidentiary facts which is expected in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff’s affidavits are equally deficient as to the circumstances of the alleged signing of the agreement of employment, and as to the existence of the alleged agreement of November, 1961, upon which defendant relies. Neither of the parties has presented adequately the transactions and relationships upon which the determination of this ease will eventually rest. The deficiencies in the affidavits on both sides upon crucial matters require that the movant be denied the summary relief sought. (Colonie Mohawk Corp. v. Gilbert & Barker Mfg. Co., 15 A D 2d 841, 842; O’Gonnor-Sullivan v. Otto, 283 App. Div. 269, 272.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

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

Order, entered January 6, 1964, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. While the affidavits of defendant may be lacking in the degree of disclosure of evidentiary facts which is expected in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, plaintiff’s affidavits are equally deficient as to the circumstances of the alleged signing of the agreement of employment, and as to the existence of the alleged agreement of November, 1961, upon which defendant relies. Neither of the parties has presented adequately the transactions and relationships upon which the determination of this ease will eventually rest. The deficiencies in the affidavits on both sides upon crucial matters require that the movant be denied the summary relief sought. (Colonie Mohawk Corp. v. Gilbert & Barker Mfg. Co., 15 A D 2d 841, 842; O’Gonnor-Sullivan v. Otto, 283 App. Div. 269, 272.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Bastow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 861, 248 N.Y.S.2d 241, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolf-v-heating-maintenance-corp-nyappdiv-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack