Bloom v. Gimbel Bros.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bloom v. Gimbel Bros.

10 A.D.2d 695, 198 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10991

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 22, 1960·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on thg lg,w and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the third-party action is reinstated, and a new trial ordered, with costa tp abide the event. While we are of the opinion that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the code, that fact alone is not determinative nor necessarily exclusive on the issue of liability because of the nature of the preparation. Whether there was a breach of warranty in light of the express purpose and knowledge pf the use to which the preparation would be put is another question to be passed upon on a new trial. Concur — M. M, Prank, J. P., Yalente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ,

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on thg lg,w and on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, the third-party action is reinstated, and a new trial ordered, with costa tp abide the event. While we are of the opinion that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of the code, that fact alone is not determinative nor necessarily exclusive on the issue of liability because of the nature of the preparation. Whether there was a breach of warranty in light of the express purpose and knowledge pf the use to which the preparation would be put is another question to be passed upon on a new trial. Concur — M. M, Prank, J. P., Yalente, McNally, Stevens and Bergan, JJ,

Bloom v. Gimbel Bros., 10 A.D.2d 695, 198 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10991 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

10 A.D.2d 695 (Bloom v. Gimbel Bros.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related