From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sternlieb v. Normandie Nat. Securities Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jul 12, 1934
152 Misc. 303 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)

Opinion

July 12, 1934.

Appeal from the Municipal Court of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District.

Godfrey Marx [ Frank L. Miller of counsel], for the appellant.

Dwyer Redfield [ Emanuel Redfield of counsel], for the respondent.


There appears to be a triable issue as to whether plaintiff ratified by failure to rescind within a reasonable time after attaining his majority. It was error, therefore, to order summary judgment.

We deem the separate defense insufficient. The authorities requiring an infant in restoring the status quo to pay for the benefits obtained from use of things purchased during infancy or for damages from deterioration by use, would not require him to make good a difference in value of shares of stock due solely to a drop in market price while he held them. The defense was properly stricken out.

Judgment and so much of order as awarded summary judgment reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion for summary judgment denied; so much of order as strikes out affirmative defense affirmed.

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


Summaries of

Sternlieb v. Normandie Nat. Securities Corp.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Jul 12, 1934
152 Misc. 303 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)
Case details for

Sternlieb v. Normandie Nat. Securities Corp.

Case Details

Full title:IRVING STERNLIEB, Respondent, v. NORMANDIE NATIONAL SECURITIES…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Jul 12, 1934

Citations

152 Misc. 303 (N.Y. App. Term 1934)
273 N.Y.S. 229

Citing Cases

Sazani v. McNally

[Cases cited.] What constitutes such a reasonable time depends upon the circumstances of the particular case…

Icovino v. Haymes

The law is to the contrary. (See Sternlieb v. Normandie Nat. Security Corp., 152 Misc. 303.) I think in a…