Barrett v. Jacobs
Cases that cite this one
96 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Sun Yau Ko v. Lincoln Savings Bank (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- State v. Lundin (N.Y. 1983)
- Sutton v. East River Savings Bank (N.Y. 1982)
- Goldman v. Leeann Builders Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1950)
- Saunders v. Higgins (District Court, S.D. New York 1939)
- Nellenback v. Madison County (N.Y. 2025)
- Morette v. Kemper, Unitrin Auto & Home Insurance (New York Supreme Court 2012)
- Ferluckaj v. Goldman Sachs & Co. (N.Y. 2009)
- Poyck v. Bryant (Civil Court of the City of New York 2006)
- South Pierre Associates v. Meyers (New York Supreme Court 2006)
- Stickles v. Fuller (New York Supreme Court 2004)
- Stickles v. Fuller (New York Supreme Court, Columbia County 2004)
- Forman v. Federal Express Corp. (Civil Court of the City of New York 2003)
- Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. (Civil Court of the City of New York 2003)
- Wilson v. Leisure Time Recreation, Inc. (Civil Court of the City of New York 2002)
- Babjeck v. Smalis, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1998)
- Bouhayer v. Georgalis (New York Supreme Court 1996)
- Ramsammy v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- National Indemnity Co. v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1995)
- Broadway—111th Street Associates v. Morris (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Chemical Bank v. West 95th Street Development Corp (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Fichtner v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (New York Supreme Court 1990)
- Gandhi v. Nayak (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Staten Island Hospital v. Home Insurance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Rennie v. Barbarosa Transport, Ltd. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
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 *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.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.