Legal Opinion
Di Bitetto v. Sussman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 28, 1952PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
The statute is to be interpreted as consistent with Federal court decisions; and accordingly the action is for damages and not for a penalty. (United States v. Harris, 89 F. Supp. 537; Porter v. Montgomery, 163 F. 2d 211; Fields v. Washington, 173 F. 2d 701.) It follows that summary judgment is not prohibited by subdivision 3 of rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, Von Doemming v. Cross (81 N. Y. S. 2d 35); Wachtel v. Schelberg (186 Misc. 406) and several other cases similarly decided, did not consider the Federal court interpretations of the statute. The papers establish that the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fields v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1949
- Porter v. MontgomeryCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1947
- United States v. HarrisDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1950
- Wachtel v. SchelbergCity of New York Municipal Court · 1946
3Cited by5 opinions
- Leonia Amusement Corp. v. Loew's Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1953
- Banana Distributors, Inc. v. United Fruit Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1957
- Oelkrug v. Gilwaldron Realty Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1964
- Rofrano v. DuffyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959
- Wolchonok v. Creston Spring Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961