Atmanchuck v. Sterling Forest Corp.

New York Supreme Court

Atmanchuck v. Sterling Forest Corp.

35 Misc. 2d 424, 232 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3183

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJune 7, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 35 Misc. 2d 424 (Atmanchuck v. Sterling Forest Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atmanchuck v. Sterling Forest Corp., 35 Misc. 2d 424, 232 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3183 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Though the agreement for the sale of the hoisting unit and the agreement for the pumping unit, which provided both for its rental and for an option for its purchase were within section 85 of the Personal Property Law (see R & L Co. v. Mets, 175 App. Div. 276, aiid. 219 N. Y. 556) there was nevertheless sufficient evidence to establish prima facie acceptance and actual receipt of the goods by the buyer. It is unnecessary to pass on the plaintiff’s further contention that the goods were manufactured especially for the buyer and were not suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of the seller’s business. It was error, therefore, to rule that the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds as a matter of law and to direct judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict finding that the agreement was between the plaintiff and the defendant. There should be a retrial of the entire case at which all the issues may be explored.

The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Hoestadteb and Tilzee, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

Though the agreement for the sale of the hoisting unit and the agreement for the pumping unit, which provided both for its rental and for an option for its purchase were within section 85 of the Personal Property Law (see R & L Co. v. Mets, 175 App. Div. 276, aiid. 219 N. Y. 556) there was nevertheless sufficient evidence to establish prima facie acceptance and actual receipt of the goods by the buyer. It is unnecessary to pass on the plaintiff’s further contention that the goods were manufactured especially for the buyer and were not suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of the seller’s business. It was error, therefore, to rule that the plaintiff’s claim is barred by the Statute of Frauds as a matter of law and to direct judgment for the defendant notwithstanding the verdict finding that the agreement was between the plaintiff and the defendant. There should be a retrial of the entire case at which all the issues may be explored.

The judgment should be reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Hoestadteb and Tilzee, JJ.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 2d 424, 232 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atmanchuck-v-sterling-forest-corp-nysupct-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack