From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laskin Sons, Inc., v. Deitel

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jun 25, 1934
152 Misc. 271 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)

Opinion

June 25, 1934.

Appeal from the City Court of New York, County of New York.

Levin, Rosmarin Schwartz [ Jerome M. Schwartz of counsel], for the appellant Kaufman.

Samuel W. Fried, for the appellant Eiger.

Spiro Felstiner [ William Felstiner of counsel], for the respondent.


The guaranty and the checks, even though read together, were insufficient as a memorandum under the Statute of Frauds (Pers. Prop. Law, § 31). The checks were not signed by the party to be charged and would not establish an agreement to postpone the time of payment merely because they were post-dated, without parol evidence of the creditor's acquiescence in such an arrangement. Therefore, the memorandum was insufficient for the reason that consideration was not sufficiently expressed therein. ( Standard Oil Co. v. Koch, 260 N.Y. 150.)

Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements and motions granted.

All concur; present, CALLAHAN, FRANKENTHALER and SHIENTAG, JJ.


Summaries of

Laskin Sons, Inc., v. Deitel

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jun 25, 1934
152 Misc. 271 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)
Case details for

Laskin Sons, Inc., v. Deitel

Case Details

Full title:J. LASKIN SONS, INC., Respondent, v. JACOB DEITEL, Defendant, and CHARLES…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jun 25, 1934

Citations

152 Misc. 271 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)
273 N.Y.S. 209

Citing Cases

Bateman Fuel Oil Service, Inc. v. Sklaver

ed October 17, 1957 and the motion was returnable on November 1, 1957. When, according to the version of…