From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jacobs v. Korpus

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Sep 1, 1926
128 Misc. 445 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)

Opinion

September, 1926.

Present — CROPSEY, MacCRATE and LEWIS, JJ.


Plaintiff's affidavit did not verify his cause of action, as required by Rules of Civil Practice, rule 113. This must be done before defendant is called upon to present any affidavit in opposition. ( State Bank v. Mackstein, 123 Misc. 416; Tidewater Oil Sales Corporation v. Pierce, 123 A.D. 796. )

Upon proper papers a motion for summary judgment may be made under the rule, either in an action "to recover a debt or liquidated demand," and this seems to cover an action for services based on a quantum meruit. ( Poland Export Corporation v. Marcus, 204 A.D. 302; Title Guarantee Trust Co. v. Smith, 215 id. 448; Norwich Pharmacal Co. v. Barrett, 205 id. 749; Runnacles v. Mesquita, L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 416.) The latter case does not appear to have been reversed, as appellant claims. The plaintiff had no basis for judgment under Rules of Civil Practice, rule 112.

Judgment and order unanimously reversed upon, the law, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event, and motion for judgment denied, with ten dollars costs.


Summaries of

Jacobs v. Korpus

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department
Sep 1, 1926
128 Misc. 445 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
Case details for

Jacobs v. Korpus

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL JACOBS, Respondent, v. PHILIP KORPUS, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department

Date published: Sep 1, 1926

Citations

128 Misc. 445 (N.Y. App. Term 1926)
218 N.Y.S. 314

Citing Cases

Hurwitz v. Corn Exchange Bank Trust Co.

The rule is not intended to shift the burden of proof and "it is only when such prima facie proof is made…

Gubin v. City of New York

Nevertheless, if the complaint is insufficient, the motion must be denied, for plaintiff is not entitled to…