From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Airflow Taxi Corporation v. C.I.T. Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 22, 1939
258 App. Div. 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)

Opinion

November 22, 1939.

Present — Sears, P.J., Crosby, Lewis, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.


Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Since the affidavits present triable issues of fact, particularly on the question as to whether or not the defendant ever sold the taxicabs, the motions for summary judgment were properly denied. ( Dwan v. Massarene, 199 App. Div. 872; Friedman v. Universal Mercerizing Co., 238 id. 805.) The credibility of the affiants is for the jury. ( Bernstein v. Kritzer, 224 App. Div. 387.) We are not required to and do not now pass upon the validity of the alleged agreement dated May 9, 1938, and marked "Exhibit B." All concur. (The order denies defendant's motion for summary judgment and denies plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.)


Summaries of

Airflow Taxi Corporation v. C.I.T. Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Nov 22, 1939
258 App. Div. 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)
Case details for

Airflow Taxi Corporation v. C.I.T. Corporation

Case Details

Full title:AIRFLOW TAXI CORPORATION, Respondent, Appellant, v. C.I.T. CORPORATION…

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

Date published: Nov 22, 1939

Citations

258 App. Div. 857 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)

Citing Cases

Caristo Constr. Corp. v. Diners Fin. Corp.

While the affidavit as noted is in direct conflict with the testimony adduced at the examination before…

Boomhower v. New York Central R.R. Co.

An issue of fact being present, summary judgment must be denied. ( Airflow Taxi Corp. v. C.I.T. Corp., 258…