Appliance Buyers Credit Corp. v. Kramsdorf

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Appliance Buyers Credit Corp. v. Kramsdorf

38 Misc. 2d 951, 237 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2302

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 31, 1963

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 Misc. 2d 951 (Appliance Buyers Credit Corp. v. Kramsdorf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Appliance Buyers Credit Corp. v. Kramsdorf, 38 Misc. 2d 951, 237 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Neither the bringing of an action by the seller for the recovery of the whole or any part of the purchase price under a conditional sales contract, nor the recovery of judgment in such action nor the collection of a portion of the price, [952]*952shall be deemed inconsistent with a later retaking of the goods as provided in section 76 of the Personal Property Law. However, such right of retaking shall not be exercised by the seller after he has collected the entire price, or after he has claimed a lien upon the goods, or attached them or levied upon them as the goods of the buyer (Personal Property Law, § 80-d). The holding of the court below, that plaintiff had made a binding election of remedies by suing in the Municipal Court for the purchase price and thereby affirmed title to the air conditioner in the defendant, and that such action precludes plaintiff from subsequently bringing an action for replevin and damages for unlawful withholding and the granting of summary judgment to defendant thereon was erroneous and contrary to law.

The order granting defendant summary judgment should be reversed, with $10 costs; plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted and the matter remanded to the Civil Court of the City of New York for assessment of damages.

Concur — G-old, J. P., Capozzoli and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Neither the bringing of an action by the seller for the recovery of the whole or any part of the purchase price under a conditional sales contract, nor the recovery of judgment in such action nor the collection of a portion of the price, [952]*952shall be deemed inconsistent with a later retaking of the goods as provided in section 76 of the Personal Property Law. However, such right of retaking shall not be exercised by the seller after he has collected the entire price, or after he has claimed a lien upon the goods, or attached them or levied upon them as the goods of the buyer (Personal Property Law, § 80-d). The holding of the court below, that plaintiff had made a binding election of remedies by suing in the Municipal Court for the purchase price and thereby affirmed title to the air conditioner in the defendant, and that such action precludes plaintiff from subsequently bringing an action for replevin and damages for unlawful withholding and the granting of summary judgment to defendant thereon was erroneous and contrary to law.

The order granting defendant summary judgment should be reversed, with $10 costs; plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment granted and the matter remanded to the Civil Court of the City of New York for assessment of damages.

Concur — G-old, J. P., Capozzoli and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Misc. 2d 951, 237 N.Y.S.2d 985, 1963 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/appliance-buyers-credit-corp-v-kramsdorf-nyappterm-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack