From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 17, 1957
3 A.D.2d 891 (N.Y. App. Div. 1957)

Opinion

April 17, 1957

Appeal from the Ontario Special Term.

Present — McCurn, P.J., Vaughan, Williams, Bastow and Goldman, JJ.


Amended order modified in accordance with the memorandum and as modified is, together with the order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the defendant. Memorandum: In view of the relief demanded in the complaint it is doubtful if plaintiff had the right to move for summary judgment. Moreover, the answer and answering affidavits raise factual issues that must await trial. Special Term correctly denied plaintiff's motion. Its attempt to decide one of the legal questions presented is not authorized under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice because the presence of other factual issues prevented the implementation of its decision by directing an assessment of damages. The amended order appealed from is modified by striking from the ordering paragraph all of the contents thereof except the words "that plaintiff's motion for summary judgment be and the same is hereby denied." All concur.


Summaries of

Wilson v. Wilson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 17, 1957
3 A.D.2d 891 (N.Y. App. Div. 1957)
Case details for

Wilson v. Wilson

Case Details

Full title:FLOYD J. WILSON, Appellant, v. LEOTA B. WILSON, Respondent

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

Date published: Apr 17, 1957

Citations

3 A.D.2d 891 (N.Y. App. Div. 1957)

Citing Cases

McClellan Agcy. v. Cunningham, Nielsen

Iliggins v. Ridgway, 153 N.Y. 130; Bernstein v. Kritzer, 253 N.Y. 410). The court on a motion for summary…