From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cook v. Bauman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jan 15, 1926
128 Misc. 23 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)

Opinion

January 15, 1926.

Appeal from the Municipal Court, Brooklyn, Seventh District.

Eugene Schwartz, for the appellants.

Morris Okoshken, for the respondent.

Present, CROPSEY, MacCRATE and LEWIS, JJ.


Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs, and motion for summary judgment denied, with ten dollars costs.

Motions for summary judgment cannot be determined by passing upon controverted questions of fact. If the affidavits submitted in opposition state facts which, if true, would constitute a defense, the motion cannot be granted. It is immaterial whether the plaintiff denies those statements or whether they remain undenied. In neither case can the motion be granted. It was error for the court below to refuse to consider the answering affidavits on the ground that copies had not been served upon the attorneys for the plaintiff as directed and that the plaintiff had not had an opportunity to reply to them. The affidavits in opposition had been filed and should have been considered. Those papers set forth facts which, if true, would constitute a defense.


Summaries of

Cook v. Bauman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Jan 15, 1926
128 Misc. 23 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
Case details for

Cook v. Bauman

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL COOK, Respondent, v. KOPPEL BAUMAN and Another, Appellants

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Jan 15, 1926

Citations

128 Misc. 23 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
217 N.Y.S. 187