From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CAMARDELLA v. E. PARKWAY ROLLER SKATING RINK, INC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1947
271 App. Div. 985 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)

Opinion

February 24, 1947.


The action is on five promissory notes aggregating $5,900. Defendant, for a separate defense, alleges that although the notes were payable two and four months after date, prior to or contemporaneous with the execution and delivery of the notes plaintiff agreed that the same would not be presented for payment until three years after date, unless defendant's board of directors decided that there was a sufficient cash surplus to pay the notes or any of them at an earlier date. Order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, the motion granted, with $10 costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff, as demanded in the complaint. The allegations as to the parol agreements do not establish a valid defense. Since there is no triable issue, it was error to deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Lewis, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Nolan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

CAMARDELLA v. E. PARKWAY ROLLER SKATING RINK, INC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1947
271 App. Div. 985 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)
Case details for

CAMARDELLA v. E. PARKWAY ROLLER SKATING RINK, INC

Case Details

Full title:SOPHIE CAMARDELLA, Appellant, v. EASTERN PARKWAY ROLLER SKATING RINK…

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

Date published: Feb 24, 1947

Citations

271 App. Div. 985 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)

Citing Cases

Weyerhaeuser Company v. Gershman

Proof of such an agreement is excluded by the parol evidence rule. Oleet v. Pennsylvania Exchange Bank, 285…

National Bank v. ESI Group, Inc.

atives of the plaintiff had orally promised to extend the due date specified in the various notes. It is,…