Zadan v. Hall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zadan v. Hall

10 A.D.2d 993, 202 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9741

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

DecidedMay 23, 1960

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.2d 993 (Zadan v. Hall) 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

Zadan v. Hall, 10 A.D.2d 993, 202 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action upon a promissory note, signed by defendant as the maker and by plaintiff as the comaker, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County, dated November 28, 1958, denying his motion for summary judgment striking out the answer. Defendant alleged that the note in suit eventuated from two underlying contracts between the parties; that such contracts were induced by plaintiff's fraud; and that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course of the instrument for which no consideration had been given. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, triable issues of fact precluded the granting of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action upon a promissory note, signed by defendant as the maker and by plaintiff as the comaker, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the County Court, Dutchess County, dated November 28, 1958, denying his motion for summary judgment striking out the answer. Defendant alleged that the note in suit eventuated from two underlying contracts between the parties; that such contracts were induced by plaintiff's fraud; and that the plaintiff was not a holder in due course of the instrument for which no consideration had been given. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, triable issues of fact precluded the granting of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 993, 202 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zadan-v-hall-nyappdiv-1960.