Bauman v. Eagle Chase Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bauman v. Eagle Chase Associates

226 A.D.2d 488, 641 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4467

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

DecidedApril 15, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 226 A.D.2d 488 (Bauman v. Eagle Chase Associates) 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

Bauman v. Eagle Chase Associates, 226 A.D.2d 488, 641 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and negligence, the defendant International Carpet Showcase, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated September 7, 1994, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract insofar as it is asserted against it.

[489]*489Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the subject contract, which was for the installation of marble floors in the plaintiffs’ condominium, fell within the ambit of CPLR 4544 as one involving a "consumer transaction” wherein the service performed is primarily for household purposes (CPLR 4544; Matter of Filippazzo v Garden State Brickface Co., 120 AD2d 663; cf., Drelich v Kenlyn Homes, 86 AD2d 648). The court also properly concluded that the "Terms and Conditions” in the subject contract are not admissible into evidence against the plaintiffs at trial since they are printed in a type size that fails to satisfy the type size requirement set forth in CPLR 4544.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and negligence, the defendant International Carpet Showcase, Inc., appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (DeMaro, J.), dated September 7, 1994, as denied that branch of its motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for breach of contract insofar as it is asserted against it.

[489]*489Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly concluded that the subject contract, which was for the installation of marble floors in the plaintiffs’ condominium, fell within the ambit of CPLR 4544 as one involving a "consumer transaction” wherein the service performed is primarily for household purposes (CPLR 4544; Matter of Filippazzo v Garden State Brickface Co., 120 AD2d 663; cf., Drelich v Kenlyn Homes, 86 AD2d 648). The court also properly concluded that the "Terms and Conditions” in the subject contract are not admissible into evidence against the plaintiffs at trial since they are printed in a type size that fails to satisfy the type size requirement set forth in CPLR 4544.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.D.2d 488, 641 N.Y.S.2d 107, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bauman-v-eagle-chase-associates-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack