From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schlenger v. 310 Canal Street Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 18, 1947
272 App. Div. 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)

Opinion

April 18, 1947.

Present — Martin, P.J., Glennon, Dore, Cohn and Peck, JJ.; Martin, P.J., and Dore, J., dissent and vote to affirm.


While the rule is that a memorandum to take a contract of sale out of the operation of the Statute of Frauds must state all the essential terms with reasonable certainty and parol evidence may not be resorted to to supply omissions, parol evidence is admissible to explain any ambiguity ( United Press v. New York Press Co., 164 N.Y. 406). Plaintiff here purports to rely on the memorandum with additions as written and asserts that parol evidence is necessary only to explain the meaning of the language employed. We think that plaintiff is entitled to develop his case at the trial within the bounds of the substantive law and rules of evidence rather than have his case determined on a motion for summary judgment. Order and judgment reversed, with costs to the appellant, and the motion denied.


Summaries of

Schlenger v. 310 Canal Street Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 18, 1947
272 App. Div. 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)
Case details for

Schlenger v. 310 Canal Street Corporation

Case Details

Full title:BERNARD SCHLENGER, Doing Business as MAGIC ELECTRO WELDER MFG. COMPANY…

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

Date published: Apr 18, 1947

Citations

272 App. Div. 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1947)