From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schoolsky v. Dalvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 1976
51 A.D.2d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

March 15, 1976


In an action on a series of promissory notes, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated August 1, 1975, as denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3213 for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff's time to serve his complaint is extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon. In our opinion the answering papers raised sufficient questions of fact as to whether plaintiff had induced consummation of the sale through misrepresentations concerning certain inventory and an outstanding claim, to warrant a trial of the action (cf. Millerton Agway Coop. v Briarcliff Farms, 17 N.Y.2d 57). Martuscello, Acting P.J., Latham, Cohalan, Damiani and Titone, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schoolsky v. Dalvin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 1976
51 A.D.2d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

Schoolsky v. Dalvin

Case Details

Full title:MAX SCHOOLSKY, Appellant, v. IRVING DALVIN et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Mar 15, 1976

Citations

51 A.D.2d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Epstein v. Scally

We disagree and at the outset, remark again that summary judgment is a drastic remedy, the procedural…