Nopco Chemical Co. v. Milner
| Decision Date | 06 February 1961 |
| Citation | 210 N.Y.S.2d 874,12 A.D.2d 942 |
| Parties | NOPCO CHEMICAL COMPANY, Appellant, v. Nathan MILNER and Seymour Kamen, co-partners, doing business as East New York Products Co., Respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jacob F. Gottesman, New York City, for appellant.
William S. Miller, New York City, for respondent.
Before NOLAN, P. J., and BELDOCK, UGHETTA, KLEINFELD and CHRIST, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover the sum of $12,674.57 as the balance alleged to be due for goods sold and delivered, in which defendants asserted a counterclaim for $300,000 based on plaintiff's alleged breach of contract, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 18, 1960, denying its motion for summary judgment and to strike out defendants' answer pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice.
Order reversed, without costs, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment granted as to its cause of action and as demanded in its complaint, subject to the following conditions: (1) that plaintiff's cause of action as to which summary judgment is granted, be severed from the cause of action pleaded as a counterclaim by defendants in their answer; (2) that the issues raised by the counterclaim and the reply thereto be determined as though they had arisen in a separate action upon a complaint and answer; and (3) that the entry of the summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on its cause of action be held in abeyance pending the determination of the counterclaim.
Plaintiff's cause of action has been established by admissions in defendants' answer and in the affidavit submitted by defendants in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Defendants have not submitted any proof of facts which would entitle them to defend against plaintiff's claim. Nor have defendants submitted any proof in support of the allegations contained in their counterclaim.
The mere assertion of the counterclaim, unsupported by proof that it is meritorious, does not bar relief to plaintiff under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice (cf. Smith v. Cranleigh, Inc., 224 App.Div. 376, 231 N.Y.S. 201). In order to defeat plaintiff's motion, it was necessary for defendants, who had conceded the validity of plaintiff's claim, to assemble and reveal their proof in support of their counterclaim (cf. Dodwell & Co., Ltd., v. Silverman, 234 App.Div. 362, 254 N.Y.S. 746). On the other hand the proof...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Belmet Products, Inc. v. Merit Enterprises, Inc.
...despite defendant's interposition of a counterclaim, the subject matter of which will be discussed, ante. (Nopco Chemical Company v. Milner, 12 A.D.2d 942, 210 N.Y.S.2d 874.) (Smith v. Cranleigh, Inc., 224 App.Div. 376, 231 N.Y.S. 201.) (Gallagher Switchboard Corp. v. Heckler Elec. Co., 34 ......
-
Goldberg v. Dial Car, Inc.
...issue of liability on his breach of contract claim but is not entitled to a dismissal of the counterclaims (see Nopco Chemical Co. v. Milner, 12 A.D.2d 942, 210 N.Y.S.2d 874; Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Solow, 70 A.D.2d 850, 723, 418 N.Y.S.2d 40, 42, modified, 51 N.Y.2d 870, 414 N.E.2d 395). A......
-
Gallagher Switchboard Corp. v. Heckler Elec. Co.
...to summary judgment on its first cause of action, but is not entitled to a dismissal of the counterclaim (See Nopco Chemical Company v. Milner, 12 A.D.2d 942, 210 N.Y.S.2d 874). The motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action is granted subject to the following (1) That the fir......
-
Frank M. Herbert, Inc. v. M & P Scrap Iron & Metal Corp.
...be held in abeyance pending the determination of the second counterclaim (CPLR Rule 3212, subd. (e) par. 2; Nopco Chemical Co. v. Milner, 12 A.D.2d 942, 210 N.Y.S.2d 874; Gallagher Switchboard Corp. v. Heckler Electric Co ., 34 Misc.2d 256, 229 N.Y.S.2d Order so far as appealed from should ......