Case Name: Emil Corenbleth and Morris Polishuk, Respondents, v. Frank Gulden, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1939-10-27
Citations: 257 A.D. 629
Docket Number: 
Parties: Emil Corenbleth and Morris Polishuk, Respondents, v. Frank Gulden, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 257
Pages: 629–630

Head Matter:
Emil Corenbleth and Morris Polishuk, Respondents, v. Frank Gulden, Appellant.
First Department,
October 27, 1939.
John J. Jansen of counsel [Thomas H. Finney with him on the brief; Chamberlin, Kafer, Wilds & Jube, attorneys], for the appellant.
Harry A. Yurdin of .counsel [M. Harworth Hendler, attorney], for the respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
We agree with the trial justice that the contract is ambiguous and that parol evidence was, therefore, admissible to explain the intention of the parties. We are, however, of the opinion that it was error to exclude testimony of the witness Stires of statements made by him to the defendant in the presence of the plaintiff Polishuk concerning the rights and liabilities of the defendant under the contract.
The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Unteemyee, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.