Yonkers Metals Corp. v. I. Burack, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yonkers Metals Corp. v. I. Burack, Inc.

278 A.D. 715, 103 N.Y.S.2d 202

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

DecidedMarch 19, 1951

StatusPublished

This text of 278 A.D. 715 (Yonkers Metals Corp. v. I. Burack, 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

Yonkers Metals Corp. v. I. Burack, Inc., 278 A.D. 715, 103 N.Y.S.2d 202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a seller of goods for damages alleged to have resulted from the buyer’s breach of contracts of sale, order granting plaintiff’s motion under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice for summary judgment, striking out defendant’s answer and directing judgment in plaintiff’s favor, reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, plaintiff’s motion denied, and the judgment entered upon said order vacated, without costs. Order denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint affirmed," without costs. In our opinion this record presents controverted issues of fact as to the agreements made by the parties and their continuance material to the determination of the controversy, which may not be summarily determined by motion but must await trial. (W erf el v. Zivnostenska Banka, 287 N. Y. 91, 93; Curry v. Mackenzie, 239 N. Y. 267, 272; Gross v. Continental Bubber Export Corp., 262 App. Div. 866.) Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a seller of goods for damages alleged to have resulted from the buyer’s breach of contracts of sale, order granting plaintiff’s motion under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice for summary judgment, striking out defendant’s answer and directing judgment in plaintiff’s favor, reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, plaintiff’s motion denied, and the judgment entered upon said order vacated, without costs. Order denying defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint affirmed," without costs. In our opinion this record presents controverted issues of fact as to the agreements made by the parties and their continuance material to the determination of the controversy, which may not be summarily determined by motion but must await trial. (W erf el v. Zivnostenska Banka, 287 N. Y. 91, 93; Curry v. Mackenzie, 239 N. Y. 267, 272; Gross v. Continental Bubber Export Corp., 262 App. Div. 866.) Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and MacCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 715, 103 N.Y.S.2d 202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yonkers-metals-corp-v-i-burack-inc-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack