From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Graymount v. Schlemmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 13, 1954
283 App. Div. 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)

Opinion

April 13, 1954.

Present — Peck, P.J., Dore, Cohn, Bastow and Botein, JJ. [ 204 Misc. 667.] [See post, p. 1030.]


Orders and judgments unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements to the respondents. The plaintiff upon motion made by the defendant, Else F. Schlemmer, for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, did not disclose evidentiary facts in his answering affidavits sufficient to entitle him to a trial of the issues. The motion of the defendant, Berdon, to dismiss the second cause of action was properly granted. This cause may not stand alone without the support of the allegations of the first cause. It having been found that the first cause presents no triable issue the second cause does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Furthermore, the second cause of action alleges no acts on the part of the defendant, Berdon, that were prejudicial to plaintiff's claimed cause of action to recover on quantum meruit as alleged only against the defendant, Schlemmer, in the first cause.


Summaries of

Graymount v. Schlemmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 13, 1954
283 App. Div. 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)
Case details for

Graymount v. Schlemmer

Case Details

Full title:VICTOR H. GRAYMOUNT, Appellant, v. ELSE F. SCHLEMMER et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Apr 13, 1954

Citations

283 App. Div. 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)

Citing Cases

Freedman v. Montague Associates

( Bright v. O'Neill, 3 A.D.2d 728.) Apart from the inapplicability here of the rule contended for by the…

Di Sabato v. Soffes

The defendants have failed to submit a single affidavit, by anyone having knowledge of the facts, to…