From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pelcyger v. Goldbrown Building Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1932
236 App. Div. 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)

Opinion

October, 1932.


Order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. In our opinion, the affidavits submitted by the defendants in opposition to the motion did not set forth facts sufficient to entitle them to defend. It was incumbent upon the defendants not only to set forth in their affidavits the alleged oral agreement but also to show facts sufficient to take such agreement out of the Statute of Frauds. The affidavits submitted in opposition to plaintiff's motion were insufficient for that purpose. In view of this decision, the appeal from the order denying plaintiff's motion to strike out the defenses contained in the amended answer is dismissed, without costs. Lazansky, P.J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

See Real Property Law, § 259; Pers. Prop. Law, § 31 Pers. Prop., subd. 1; Id. § 85, as added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571. — [REP.


Summaries of

Pelcyger v. Goldbrown Building Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1932
236 App. Div. 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)
Case details for

Pelcyger v. Goldbrown Building Corporation

Case Details

Full title:FRANK PELCYGER, Appellant, v. GOLDBROWN BUILDING CORPORATION and Others…

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

Date published: Oct 1, 1932

Citations

236 App. Div. 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)

Citing Cases

Cooley Trading Co., Inc., v. Goetz

This answer was not "interposed" until October 30, 1935. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 11, formerly Code Civ. Proc. §…

Bushwick-Decatur Motors v. Ford Motor Co.

The exercise of the option was not a new agreement, but was under the original Sales Agreement, which was a…