DiLeo v. Werb

Nov 10, 1975
Reporters:
, ,

—In an action inter alia to recover amounts due on two promissory notes, plaintiffs appeal from (1) an order of ‍​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated April 17, 1975, which denied their motion for summary judgment, and (2) a further order of the same court, dated May 29, 1975, which granted defendants’ motion for leave ‍​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍to serve an amended answer. Orders affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. The time within which defendants may serve an amended answer is hereby extended until 20 days after entry of the order to be made ‍​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍hereon. We believe that there is a question of fact as to whether the parties entered into a written contract which relieved defendants of personal liability on the notes or whether the parties performed under ‍​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍an oral contract to the same effect (Uniform Commercial Code, §§ 3-119, 3-601; cf. North Side Sav. Bank v Septimus, 33 AD2d 913). In view of the foregoing, we believe that Special Term properly exercised its discretion in ‍​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​​​​​‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‍permitting defendants to interpose an amended answer. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Brennan, JJ., concur.