From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Smith v. Kent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 15, 1940
259 App. Div. 117 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)

Opinion

March 15, 1940.

Appeal from Supreme Court of New York County, KOCH, J.

Herman Scheckner of counsel [ S. Arthur Glixon, attorney], for the appellant.

Edgar H.A. Chapman of counsel [ Reed Chapman, attorneys], for the respondent.

Present — MARTIN, P.J., TOWNLEY, DORE, COHN and CALLAHAN, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without prejudice to the maintenance of a plenary action to vacate judgment.


Upon this motion to vacate a judgment, entered upon defendant's confession of judgment alleged to be void for lack of consideration and for fraud, the sharply contested issues of fact should not be resolved upon affidavits. The motion should have been denied without prejudice to a plenary action to vacate the judgment. In such action the court may afford adequate protection to the parties. (Cf. 15 R.C.L. § 106, p. 659.)

The order should be reversed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, without prejudice to the maintenance of a plenary action.


Summaries of

Smith v. Kent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 15, 1940
259 App. Div. 117 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)
Case details for

Smith v. Kent

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM SMITH, Appellant, v. PEGGY ANN KENT, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 15, 1940

Citations

259 App. Div. 117 (N.Y. App. Div. 1940)
18 N.Y.S.2d 262

Citing Cases

Wilk v. Cohen

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied in all respects without…

Scheckter v. Ryan

Cases dating back at least 50 years have so held, on grounds that sharply contested issues of fact should not…