Legal Opinion

Airflow Taxi Corp. v. C. I. T. Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 22, 1939PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: Since the affidavits present triable issues of fact, particularly on the question as to whether or not the defendant ever sold the taxicabs, the motions for summary judgment were properly denied. (Dwan v. Massarene, 199 App. Div. 872; Friedman v. Universal Mercerizing Co., 238 id. 805.) The credibility of the affiants is for the jury. (Bernstein v. Kritzer, 224 App. Div. 387.) We are not required to and do not now pass upon the validity of the alleged agreement dated May 9,1938, and marked “ Exhibit B.” All concur. (The…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Dwan v. MassareneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  2. Bernstein v. KritzerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Aluminum Supply Co. v. CamelioNew York Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Caristo Construction Corp. v. Diners Financial Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1965
  3. Boomhower v. New York Central RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948
  4. Rutgers Chevrolet Co. v. GoodyNew York Supreme Court · 1957

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API