American Bluing Co. v. Bennett Distributors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Bluing Co. v. Bennett Distributors, Inc.

124 A.D.2d 1019, 508 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62360

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 124 A.D.2d 1019 (American Bluing Co. v. Bennett Distributors, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Bluing Co. v. Bennett Distributors, Inc., 124 A.D.2d 1019, 508 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: The court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment for the price of goods sold because defendant has raised a factual issue with respect to whether the purchaser was defendant broker, or defendant’s customer to whom the goods were shipped. Defendant alleged, and plaintiff did not deny, that before the date of the invoice showing a sale to defendant and shipment to defendant’s customer, plaintiff had directed defendant to notify its customers that billing and payment would be handled directly between plaintiff and defendant’s customers, although orders would still be placed through defendant. Therefore, an issue of fact exists as to whether defendant or defendant’s customer is responsible for payment to plaintiff (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kuszynski, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

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

Memorandum: The court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment for the price of goods sold because defendant has raised a factual issue with respect to whether the purchaser was defendant broker, or defendant’s customer to whom the goods were shipped. Defendant alleged, and plaintiff did not deny, that before the date of the invoice showing a sale to defendant and shipment to defendant’s customer, plaintiff had directed defendant to notify its customers that billing and payment would be handled directly between plaintiff and defendant’s customers, although orders would still be placed through defendant. Therefore, an issue of fact exists as to whether defendant or defendant’s customer is responsible for payment to plaintiff (see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Kuszynski, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 1019, 508 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-bluing-co-v-bennett-distributors-inc-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack