TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

New York City Transit Authority v. Green Bus Lines, Inc.

N.Y. City Transit Auth. v. Green Bus Lines, Inc., 16 A.D.2d 959 (1962)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 18, 1962
Citations
16 A.D.2d 959229 N.Y.S.2d 7871962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12295

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In an action by an assignee of a contract to recover moneys claimed to be due and owing under the contract, plaintiff, by permission of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, appeals from its order dated June 29, 1961, which affirmed a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Brooklyn, First District, entered September 19, 1960, in favor of defendant, pursuant to an order of said Municipal Court, dated November 20, 1959, denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment or for alternative relief, and granting defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment ( 20 Misc 2d 659 ). Order of Appellate Term affirmed, with costs. At the time of the making of the contract on November 6, 1936, plaintiff’s remote assignor had been operating a street surface railroad along Jamaica Avenue, west of 168th Street, in the Borough of Queens, City of New York. The defendant had been granted a franchise by the City of New York to operate omnibuses along certain streets in that borough, including part of this portion of Jamaica Avenue, and, in accordance with law, defendant had applied to the then extant Transit Commission of the State of New York for a certificate of convenience and necessity. The commission had scheduled a hearing on the application. Said assignor opposed the application, but it desisted because it entered into the contract in question with defendant. The contract provided that the assignor would withdraw its opposition and that defendant would make certain payments to the assignor. In our opinion the contract, being one to pay for another’s refraining from opposing a legal *960 proceeding such as the one -here, was against public policy and therefore is unenforcible (cf. Atcheson v. Mallon, 43 N. Y. 147 ). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1996: 119962026peak 1996 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Beacon Hill Civic Ass'n v. Ristorante Toscano, Inc.662 N.E.2d 1015 (Mass. 1996)

Most recent

  1. Beacon Hill Civic Ass'n v. Ristorante Toscano, Inc.662 N.E.2d 1015 (Mass. 1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Atcheson v. Mallon, 43 N.Y. 147 (1870) 50
N.Y. City Transit Auth. v. Jamaica Buses, Inc., 20 Misc. 2d 659 (1959) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list