History
  • No items yet
midpage
Barrett v. Jacobs
175 N.E. 275
| NY | 1931
|
Check Treatment

On an application for summary judgment under rule 113, Rules of Civil Practice, the only question is whether an unsubstantial formal defense has been interposed for purposes of delay. Judgment should not be granted unless it is clear that plaintiff has made out a case on the undisputed material facts presented on the record by affidavit or other proof. (Curry v. Mackenzie,239 N.Y. 267, 269.)

In this case it is not clear that the action was not prematurely brought; it is not clear that the respondents have earned their commissions under their contract of employment. It is significant, although not conclusive, that the trial justice and two justices of the Appellate Division were of the opinion that there were questions *Page 522 of fact to be tried. Respondents have an arguable defense on the record before us and should not be deprived of a trial.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the order of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, LEHMAN, KELLOGG, O'BRIEN and HUBBS, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly. *Page 523

Case Details

Case Name: Barrett v. Jacobs
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Feb 19, 1931
Citation: 175 N.E. 275
Court Abbreviation: NY
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.