Yourth v. Boggs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Yourth v. Boggs

33 A.D.2d 549, 304 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 33 A.D.2d 549 (Yourth v. Boggs) 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

Yourth v. Boggs, 33 A.D.2d 549, 304 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered April 22, 1969 granting plaintiff summary judgment, and judgment entered thereon April 30, 1969, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the judgment vacated and the motion denied. Plaintiff’s marital status prior to October, 1966 has been placed in issue by defendant’s evidence. Sufficient circumstantial facts were proffered to lead a reasonable mind to conclude that plaintiff married Stuart Walker during 1966. Summary judgment may not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of material and triable issues of fact —• or where the issue is arguable — issue finding rather than issue determination is the key to summary judgment. (See Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N Y 2d 395.) With respect to the March 4, 1966 written agreement, it appears that plaintiff accepted support payments thereunder without objection, thereby waiving the formality of its execution required by the original agreement. On the facts in this record we find the March 4, 1966 writing to constitute a valid modification of the prior agreement rather than an executory accord within the purview of section 15-501 of the General Obligations Law. Concur — ■ Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Nunez and Macken, JJ.

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

Order entered April 22, 1969 granting plaintiff summary judgment, and judgment entered thereon April 30, 1969, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, the judgment vacated and the motion denied. Plaintiff’s marital status prior to October, 1966 has been placed in issue by defendant’s evidence. Sufficient circumstantial facts were proffered to lead a reasonable mind to conclude that plaintiff married Stuart Walker during 1966. Summary judgment may not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of material and triable issues of fact —• or where the issue is arguable — issue finding rather than issue determination is the key to summary judgment. (See Sillman v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 3 N Y 2d 395.) With respect to the March 4, 1966 written agreement, it appears that plaintiff accepted support payments thereunder without objection, thereby waiving the formality of its execution required by the original agreement. On the facts in this record we find the March 4, 1966 writing to constitute a valid modification of the prior agreement rather than an executory accord within the purview of section 15-501 of the General Obligations Law. Concur — ■ Eager, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, Nunez and Macken, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 549, 304 N.Y.S.2d 440, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yourth-v-boggs-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack