From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

De Groes v. De Groes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 20, 1962
17 A.D.2d 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)

Opinion

November 20, 1962


Order, entered on April 17, 1962, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaim, unanimously affirmed, and the judgment entered on said order on April 25, 1962, is likewise affirmed, with costs to the respondent. We do not reach the question as to whether the cases of Cohen v. Cohen ( 3 N.Y.2d 813) and Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris ( 5 N.Y.2d 317) are controlling. In our opinion the affidavits are insufficient to present a triable issue even on the question of the fraud alleged. Nor is there a triable issue raised with respect to the claim of coercion. In Hanrog Distr. Corp. v. Hanioti ( 10 Misc.2d 659, 660) Mr. Justice SHIENTAG said that "A shadowy semblance of an issue is not enough to defeat the motion." There is no more than that here.

Concur — Rabin, J.P., Valente, McNally, Eager and Steuer, JJ.


Summaries of

De Groes v. De Groes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Nov 20, 1962
17 A.D.2d 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)
Case details for

De Groes v. De Groes

Case Details

Full title:JANICE DE GROES, Respondent, v. ARNOLD DE GROES, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 20, 1962

Citations

17 A.D.2d 930 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)

Citing Cases

Seagram v. Bankers Trust

These are most serious charges and summary judgment must be withheld to resolve these factual discrepancies…

Metropolitan Bank of Syracuse v. Hall

Memorandum: Special Term's determination that no substantial issue of fact exists bearing upon defendants'…