Cohen v. Pannia
| Decision Date | 14 January 1959 |
| Citation | 181 N.Y.S.2d 220,7 A.D.2d 886 |
| Parties | Harry L. COHEN, d/b/a Genesee Supply Co., Appellant, v. James L. PANNIA and Leon L. Paikin, Co-partners, d/b/a Modern Lanes, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Norman M. Pinsky, Syracuse (Herbert M. Canter, Syracuse, of counsel), for appellant.
Anthony Smith, Syracuse (Stanley G. Germain, Syracuse, of counsel), for respondents. Before McCURN, P. J., and WILLIAMS, BASTOW, GOLDMAN, and HALPERN, JJ.
The affidavits submitted on the motion for summary judgment under Rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice establish the second cause of action alleged in plaintiff's complaint for an account stated sufficiently to entitle the plaintiff to judgment. See Rodkinson v. Haecker, 248 N.Y. 480, 485, 162 N.E. 493, 495. The opposing affidavit made by defendants' attorney is not based upon personal knowledge, but on hearsay and must therefore be disregarded. See City Savings Bank of Brooklyn v. Torro, 253 App.Div. 748, 300 N.Y.S. 1009; Favole v. Gallo, 263 App.Div. 729, 30 N.Y.S.2d 878; Buffalo General Hospital v. Suppa, 257 App.Div. 1030, 13 N.Y.S.2d 680.
Order of Onondaga County Court and order of Syracuse Municipal Court reversed with ten dollars costs and disbursements and motion granted without costs.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burgos v. 205 E.D. Food Corp., Index No: 15760/06
...20 A.D.2d 668 (2nd Dept. 1964); Erin Federico v. City of Mechanicville, 141 A.D.2d 1002 (3rd Dept. 1988); Harry L. Cohen v. Genesee Supply Co., 7 A.D.2d 886 (4th Dept. 1959). Consequently any such submissions are inadmissible and cannot be the basis for creating an issue of fact sufficient ......
-
Phillips v. Joseph Kantor & Co.
...(id.). True, it has been said that inadmissible evidence is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (e.g., Cohen v. Pannia, 7 A.D.2d 886, 181 N.Y.S.2d 220; Ford v. Hahn, 269 App.Div. 436, 55 N.Y.S.2d 854; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., 3212.05c, at p. 32--142.37, but c......
-
Kaiser v. State
...considered '* * * pure hearsay, valueless and must be disregarded (Di Sabato v. Soffes, 9 A.D.2d 297, 193 N.Y.S.2d 184; Cohen v. Pannia, 7 A.D.2d 886, 181 N.Y.S.2d 220).' Hood v. Murray, supra, p. 163, 268 N.Y.S.2d p. 282. The opposing papers also included an affidavit by one, Royal Tallman......
-
Kwong On Bank, Ltd. v. Monrose Knitwear Corp.
...(id.). True, it has been said that inadmissable evidence is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment (e. g., Cohen v. Pannia, 7 A.D.2d 886, 181 N.Y.S.2d 220; Ford v. Hahn, 269 App.Div. 436, 55 N.Y.S.2d 854; 4 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y.Civ.Prac., § 3212.05c, at p. 32-142.37, but......