From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Epstein v. Kaplan

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 8, 1934
150 Misc. 520 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)

Opinion

February 8, 1934.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.

Bokor Epstein [ Jacob H. Epstein of counsel], for the appellant.

Sol R. Kaplan, for the respondent.


Even though this action is one at law, if the plaintiff seeks to escape from the consequences of a release by showing mutual mistake or mistake and fraud, that issue, though equitable in nature, may be determined in the law action. ( Wilcox v. American T. T. Co., 176 N.Y. 115; Warner v. Star Co., 162 A.D. 458.) It is not necessary first to reform the instrument. ( Susquehanna S.S. Co. v. Andersen Co., 239 N.Y. 285.) The rule is no different in the Municipal Court, since plaintiff does not seek equitable relief, but merely seeks to negative the affirmative defense interposed by the defendant. ( Mundler v. Palmer, 165 N.Y.S. 987; Jensen v. Barber Steamship Lines, 110 Misc. 632.)

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, HAMMER, CALLAHAN and SHIENTAG, JJ.


Summaries of

Epstein v. Kaplan

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 8, 1934
150 Misc. 520 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)
Case details for

Epstein v. Kaplan

Case Details

Full title:C. JOSHUA EPSTEIN, Appellant, v. SIMON KAPLAN, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Feb 8, 1934

Citations

150 Misc. 520 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)
269 N.Y.S. 604

Citing Cases

Fiance v. United Jewish Appeal of Greater NY

Section 18 of article VI of the Constitution of the State of New York deprives this court of equitable…

Fiance v. United Jewish Appeal of Greater N.Y

Section 18 of article VI of the Constitution of the State of New York deprives this court of equitable…