From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cohen v. Pannia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 14, 1959
7 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)

Opinion

January 14, 1959

Appeal from the Onondaga County Court.

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


Order of Onondaga County Court and order of Syracuse Municipal Court reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, without costs. Memorandum: The affidavits submitted on the motion for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice establish the second cause of action alleged in plaintiff's complaint for an account stated sufficiently to entitle the plaintiff to judgment. (See Rodkinson v. Haecker, 248 N.Y. 480, 485.) The opposing affidavit made by defendants' attorney is not based upon personal knowledge, but on hearsay and must therefore be disregarded. (See City Sav. Bank of Brooklyn v. Torro, 253 App. Div. 748; Favole v. Gallo, 263 App. Div. 729; Buffalo Gen. Hosp. v. Suppa, 257 App. Div. 1030.) All concur.


Summaries of

Cohen v. Pannia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 14, 1959
7 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)
Case details for

Cohen v. Pannia

Case Details

Full title:HARRY L. COHEN, Doing Business as GENESEE SUPPLY CO., Appellant, v. JAMES…

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

Date published: Jan 14, 1959

Citations

7 A.D.2d 886 (N.Y. App. Div. 1959)

Citing Cases

Young v. Nelson

The papers submitted for leave to amend the complaint are inadequate in that there is no affidavit by a…

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Rettahata

The defendants opposition is based solely upon the defendants and defense counsels conclusory and speculative…