A. M. Knitwear Corp. v. All America Export-Import Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

A. M. Knitwear Corp. v. All America Export-Import Corp.

50 A.D.2d 558, 375 N.Y.S.2d 23, 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 381, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12300

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 3, 1975·Published

Opinion

— In an action inter alia to recover for goods sold and delivered, a quantity of polyester yarn, defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 9, 1974, which, inter alia, (a) granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and (b) denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and (2) the judgment of the same court, entered December 24, 1974, upon the said order. Order and judgment reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements; plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant’s cross motion is granted. In our opinion, there was neither physical delivery of the trailer which contained the yarn to the carrier in compliance with the purchase agreement nor delivery within the meaning of subdivision (2) of section 2-401 and section 2-509 (subd [1], par [a]) of the Uniform Commercial Code. Hence, title to and responsibility for the yarn remained with plaintiff (see Avisun Corp. v Mercer Motor Frgt., 37 AD2d 517). Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Margett and Munder, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— In an action inter alia to recover for goods sold and delivered, a quantity of polyester yarn, defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 9, 1974, which, inter alia, (a) granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and (b) denied defendant’s cross motion for summary judgment and (2) the judgment of the same court, entered December 24, 1974, upon the said order. Order and judgment reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements; plaintiffs motion for summary judgment is denied and defendant’s cross motion is granted. In our opinion, there was neither physical delivery of the trailer which contained the yarn to the carrier in compliance with the purchase agreement nor delivery within the meaning of subdivision (2) of section 2-401 and section 2-509 (subd [1], par [a]) of the Uniform Commercial Code. Hence, title to and responsibility for the yarn remained with plaintiff (see Avisun Corp. v Mercer Motor Frgt., 37 AD2d 517). Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Margett and Munder, JJ., concur.

A. M. Knitwear Corp. v. All America Export-Import Corp., 50 A.D.2d 558, 375 N.Y.S.2d 23, 18 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 381, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12300 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

50 A.D.2d 558 (A. M. Knitwear Corp. v. All America Export-Import Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related