American Linen Supply Co. v. Penn Yan Marine Manufacturing Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

American Linen Supply Co. v. Penn Yan Marine Manufacturing Corp.

172 A.D.2d 1007, 569 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6246

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

DecidedApril 26, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 1007 (American Linen Supply Co. v. Penn Yan Marine Manufacturing Corp.) 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 Linen Supply Co. v. Penn Yan Marine Manufacturing Corp., 172 A.D.2d 1007, 569 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6246 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, made in reliance on the defense of the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]), [1008]*1008was properly denied. The signed and unsigned writings, when read together, provide all essential terms of the contract and clearly refer to the same transaction. There is at least one writing, the original agreement, which establishes a contractual relationship between the parties and bears the signature of the party to be charged. The sizing slips, invoices, and defendant’s check in payment of those invoices, as well as the testimony of the parties, corroborate defendant’s assent to increasing the number of rental uniforms to be included in the contract between the parties. The writings satisfy the Statute of Frauds (see, Crabtree v Arden Sales Corp., 305 NY 48, 55-56). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Yates County, Falvey, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, made in reliance on the defense of the Statute of Frauds (General Obligations Law § 5-701 [a] [1]), [1008]*1008was properly denied. The signed and unsigned writings, when read together, provide all essential terms of the contract and clearly refer to the same transaction. There is at least one writing, the original agreement, which establishes a contractual relationship between the parties and bears the signature of the party to be charged. The sizing slips, invoices, and defendant’s check in payment of those invoices, as well as the testimony of the parties, corroborate defendant’s assent to increasing the number of rental uniforms to be included in the contract between the parties. The writings satisfy the Statute of Frauds (see, Crabtree v Arden Sales Corp., 305 NY 48, 55-56). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Yates County, Falvey, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Boomer, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 1007, 569 N.Y.S.2d 267, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-linen-supply-co-v-penn-yan-marine-manufacturing-corp-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack