From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Feyh v. Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 1954
283 App. Div. 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)

Opinion

March 15, 1954.


In an action to reform promissory notes and a chattel mortgage, defendant pleaded three affirmative defenses, and moved for summary judgment on the ground that such defenses were founded upon facts established prima facie by documentary proof or official record. Plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment. Both motions were denied, and the parties appeal from those parts of the order which denied their respective motions. Order affirmed, without costs. An action for reformation is not one of the actions enumerated in subdivisions 1 to 9 of rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, in which a plaintiff may move for summary judgment. Defendant is not entitled to summary judgment because it has failed to establish prima facie the defenses by "documentary evidence or official record", as required by the rule. Nolan, P.J., Adel, Wenzel, MacCrate and Murphy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Feyh v. Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 15, 1954
283 App. Div. 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)
Case details for

Feyh v. Brandtjen & Kluge, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY T. FEYH, Individually and Doing Business as WYCKOFF PRESS…

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

Date published: Mar 15, 1954

Citations

283 App. Div. 807 (N.Y. App. Div. 1954)

Citing Cases

People ex Rel. McGoldrick v. Baldwin Gardens, Inc.

Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the final order therein, but has not prosecuted the appeal further…

Dahme v. Cherry Grove Ferry Corporation

The action is not one which seeks only a declaratory judgment (cf. Lynch v. Bailey, 279 App. Div. 650, affd.…