Case ID: misc_186/html/0108-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Memorandum Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Harry L. Siegel, Respondent, v. Harry Goodman et al., Appellants.
    Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
    December 21, 1945.
    
      
      Lawrence 1. Gerber for appellants.
    
      Bennett I. Schlessel for respondent.
   Memorandum Per Curiam.

The complaint should have been dismissed at the end of plaintiff’s case. Under section 33-c of the Personal Property Law, there could be no modification of the written agreement unless in writing.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

Hammer, McLaughlin and Eder, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.