From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hanrog Distr. Corp. v. Hanioti

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Mar 3, 1945
10 Misc. 2d 659 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1945)

Summary

In Hanrog Distr. Corp. v. Hanioti (10 Misc.2d 659, 660) Mr. Justice SHIENTAG said that "A shadowy semblance of an issue is not enough to defeat the motion."

Summary of this case from De Groes v. De Groes

Opinion

March 3, 1945

Saul E. Rogers for plaintiff.

Andrew J. Dritsas for defendant.


This is a motion for summary judgment. The complaint is predicated on a written agreement of guarantee entered into between the parties. The answer consists of a general denial and four separate defenses alleging, generally, fraud and duress in the execution of the writing upon which the complaint is based. The answering affidavit of the defendant fails, however, to set forth facts within the meaning of rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice sustaining the formal defenses contained in the answer. The papers show without contradiction that the defendant was at all times represented by an attorney not only in connection with the execution of the agreement of guarantee, but in connection with the other agreements which were necessary to effectuate the transaction between the parties.

While it is true that the court may not on a motion for summary judgment try an issue of fact and is called upon solely to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried, it, nevertheless, is not required to shut its eyes to a defense shown by the very affidavit submitted by the defendant to be patently false. A shadowy semblance of an issue is not enough to defeat the motion. Rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice would serve no useful purpose if frivolous and transparently insufficient proofs such as have been brought forward here were held to create a triable issue ( Richard v. Credit Suisse, 242 N.Y. 346; Dwan v. Massarene, 199 App. Div. 872; Strasburger v. Rosenheim, 234 App. Div. 544; Gravenhorst v. Zimmerman, 236 N.Y. 22). The situation here is not one of a conflict in affidavits, but, rather, it is one where the writing executed by the parties and the very nature of the averments contained in the defendant's affidavit show that the issue sought to be created is neither genuine nor substantial.

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is granted. Execution stayed five days.

Settle order.


Summaries of

Hanrog Distr. Corp. v. Hanioti

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County
Mar 3, 1945
10 Misc. 2d 659 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1945)

In Hanrog Distr. Corp. v. Hanioti (10 Misc.2d 659, 660) Mr. Justice SHIENTAG said that "A shadowy semblance of an issue is not enough to defeat the motion."

Summary of this case from De Groes v. De Groes

In Hanrog Distributing Corp. v. Hanioti (10 Misc.2d 659), where there were conflicting affidavits but a written guarantee agreement evidencing the true position of the parties, Mr. Justice SHIENTAG pointed out that "A shadowy semblance of an issue is not enough to defeat the motion" for summary judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice.

Summary of this case from Eaton v. Laurel Delicatessen
Case details for

Hanrog Distr. Corp. v. Hanioti

Case Details

Full title:HANROG DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. BASIL HANIOTI, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County

Date published: Mar 3, 1945

Citations

10 Misc. 2d 659 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1945)
54 N.Y.S.2d 500

Citing Cases

O'Brien v. Purpura

"A defendant is not privileged on a motion for summary judgment to ignore the rule that he must submit proof…

Michigan Assoc. v. Emigrant Sav. Bank

It does not actually claim that the beneficiary was so entitled. Keeping in mind that this matter is before…