Blue Ribbon Ice Cream Co. v. Banner Roofing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Blue Ribbon Ice Cream Co. v. Banner Roofing Co.

18 A.D.2d 1074, 239 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4050

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

DecidedApril 1, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 1074 (Blue Ribbon Ice Cream Co. v. Banner Roofing Co.) 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

Blue Ribbon Ice Cream Co. v. Banner Roofing Co., 18 A.D.2d 1074, 239 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for injury to property, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 13, 1962 after a jury trial, as dismissed the complaint against both defendants, at the close of plaintiff’s case, for failure of proof. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law, and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event. Plaintiff, an ice-cream manufacturer, brought this action to recover damages allegedly sustained as a result of the improper utilization, in its plant, of a noxious roofing material which contaminated plaintiff’s own product. Defendant Banner Roofing Co., Inc., applied the roofing material which was manufactured by the defendant Allied Chemical Corporation. Upon this record, it is our opinion that jury questions were presented: (1) as to the defendant Banner’s alleged failure to perform its job in a workmanlike manner; (2) as to its alleged breach of its warranty that the material applied in plaintiff’s plant was proper and suitable for its intended use; (3) as to defendant Allied’s alleged negligent misrepresentation that its product was fit for use in plaintiff’s plant; and .(4) as to its alleged breach of its warranty of fitness for use (Personal Property Law, § 96, stibd. 1). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, 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 injury to property, plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 13, 1962 after a jury trial, as dismissed the complaint against both defendants, at the close of plaintiff’s case, for failure of proof. Judgment, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law, and a new trial granted, with costs to plaintiff to abide the event. Plaintiff, an ice-cream manufacturer, brought this action to recover damages allegedly sustained as a result of the improper utilization, in its plant, of a noxious roofing material which contaminated plaintiff’s own product. Defendant Banner Roofing Co., Inc., applied the roofing material which was manufactured by the defendant Allied Chemical Corporation. Upon this record, it is our opinion that jury questions were presented: (1) as to the defendant Banner’s alleged failure to perform its job in a workmanlike manner; (2) as to its alleged breach of its warranty that the material applied in plaintiff’s plant was proper and suitable for its intended use; (3) as to defendant Allied’s alleged negligent misrepresentation that its product was fit for use in plaintiff’s plant; and .(4) as to its alleged breach of its warranty of fitness for use (Personal Property Law, § 96, stibd. 1). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 1074, 239 N.Y.S.2d 574, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blue-ribbon-ice-cream-co-v-banner-roofing-co-nyappdiv-1963.