¶1The order of September 11, 1959 as resettled by the order of December 17, 1959, denying defendants-appellants’ motion in the nature of one for the renewal or rehearing of the plaintiff s-resp ondents’ motion for summary judgment, is reversed, on the law, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs to defendants-appellants (see Civ. Prac. Act, § 562-a); the defendants-appellants’ said motion is granted. The order dated July 9, 1959 granting summary judgment is vacated and the plaintiff s-resp ondents’ motion for summary judgment is denied on the law. The record raises questions of fact which require a trial, including, among others, the extent of plaintiffs-respondents’ services covered by the mortgage and whether, in fact, plaintiffs-respondents rendered professional services as claimed. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, M. M. Frank, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
10 A.D.2d 606
Snitow v. Dukes
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 2, 1960
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1960-02-02
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1985
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1960-02-02
View the full empirical analysis of this case →