From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Berler v. Grossman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 2, 1947
188 Misc. 201 (N.Y. App. Term 1947)

Opinion

January 2, 1947.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, WATSON, J.

Abraham Dolinsky for appellant.

Joseph Apfel and Morris Berler, in person for Morris Berler, respondent.


MEMORANDUM


Although there was no affirmative defense of lack or failure of consideration for the negotiable instrument in the hands of one not a holder in due course and for value, the court, in the interests of justice, should have permitted the defendant to offer proof that the consideration for which the instrument had been given had failed.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with $20 costs to appellant to abide the event.

HAMMER, SHIENTAG and EDER, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Berler v. Grossman

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jan 2, 1947
188 Misc. 201 (N.Y. App. Term 1947)
Case details for

Berler v. Grossman

Case Details

Full title:MORRIS BERLER, Respondent, v. SOLOMON S. GROSSMAN, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jan 2, 1947

Citations

188 Misc. 201 (N.Y. App. Term 1947)
67 N.Y.S.2d 520

Citing Cases

Ensign v. Klekosky

From such an erroneous presumption ( First Nat. Bank Trust Co. of Elmira v. Conzo, supra), defendant's…