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

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 10 A.D.2d 695 (Bloom v. Gimbel Bros.) 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

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

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,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.2d 695, 198 N.Y.S.2d 52, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bloom-v-gimbel-bros-nyappdiv-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack